Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup

The Week That Was: 2013-08-03 (August 3, 2013) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project


Quote of the Week: “Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm — but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.” (T.S. Eliot)


Number of the Week: $20 Billion



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

Sea Level Rise: As nature refuses to obey global climate models and the earth is not warming as projected by the models with increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, it is becoming increasingly clear that those who insisted that CO2 emissions would cause catastrophic Anthropogenic (human caused) Global Warming (AGW) are becoming more desperate. One of the fears being promoted is catastrophic sea level rise of multiple feet or meters by the end of the century.

In Article # 1, SEPP Chairman Fred Singer discusses some of the issues regarding sea level rise and why it is difficult to be precise. In summary, unless solid observational evidence is offered otherwise, there is no reason to assume that 21st century sea level rise will be greater than 20th century sea level rise – namely about 7 inches (18 cm).

There is an irony in US government agencies, and other climate researchers, declaring that possible sea level rise may range from 7 inches to up to 33 times that (Hansen – 600 cm, or 236 inches). In in its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expressed great certainty in the climate science. The US EPA made this certainty an important finding in US Federal Courts. Now government agencies are expressing great uncertainty in climate science. Please see Article #1 and links under Communicating Better to the Public – Make things Up and Changing Seas.


EPA Science: In the Wall Street Journal, Lamar Smith, Chairman of the US House Science, Space and Technology Committee expresses concern about the EPA scientific studies that are being used to justify a massive new array of air quality regulations. The EPA refuses to make the studies public, in spite of declaring it would.

“We know this much: Virtually every major EPA air-quality regulation under President Obama has been justified by citing two sets of decades-old data from the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Prevention Study II. The EPA uses the data to establish an association between fine-particulate emissions and mortality.

“For two years, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, of which I am the chairman, has sought to make this information available to the public. But the EPA has obstructed the committee’s request at every step. To date, the committee has sent six letters to the EPA and other top administration officials seeking the data’s release.”

As long as the EPA continues to keep the research secret, there is every reason to be suspicious about the quality of the research.

One can assess the quality and clarity of EPA science from the oral arguments used by Angeline Purdy, who was introduced as the scientific and technical expert, before the 3 judge panel of the US Circuit of Appeals for the DC Circuit hearing the challenge to the EPA finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare (Endangerment Finding).

The most disturbing part is the argument on model validation which is on page 90 of the transcript. She states:

“What reanalysis is, is it’s [sic] one method by which some models are validated, and that is a process by which, you know, again, a model is validated by looking whether its projections match real world data, there may be some things that are incomplete in that data set, inevitably, because maybe it covers 100 locations but doesn’t have a data point at the 101st. So, you take that data set, you run it through a model that has already been valid and that can use principles of physics, what it knows about the climate system to fill in any interstices in that data set, then take the model you’re trying to validate and you compare its projections against that augmented data set.

No model has been validated. One cannot use an un-validated model to validate another model. If a valid model existed, that would be the one used – there would not be some 73 models. All 73 models project far too much warming of the atmosphere over the tropics. Please see Article #2 for the op-ed on EPA secret science.


Thought, Belief, and Scientific Knowledge: Two weeks ago, a low point in the Senate hearing on climate change was reached when Senator Whitehouse questioned Roy Spencer about his religious beliefs. Spencer clearly outclassed the Senator, but the issue remains – some of those skeptical of the claim of catastrophic carbon based AGW are being classified as religious zealots.

During the development of modern empirical science, in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, many pioneers were religiously devout. They believed that Natural Philosophy (an earlier term for science) was the method to unlock the secrets of nature and fulfill their religious duty. They were able to separate thought from belief, and belief from scientific knowledge.

Spencer and John Christy have undergone bitter criticism for their willingness to publically report atmospheric temperatures from satellite measurements, the most comprehensive measurements available. When RSS discovered an error in the calculations, failure to account for orbital drift, Spencer and Christy promptly admitted the error and corrected it. This is the way science advances.

If religious beliefs give some scientists the strength to stand up to bitter criticism and to conduct their scientific pursuits scrumptiously, so be it. Those critics who question these beliefs are engaged in nothing more than ad hominem attacks. For a link to the hearing with Spencer’s interrogation beginning about 3 hours and 23 minutes into it please see: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Choose&Hearing_id=cfe32378-96a4-81ed-9d0e-2618e6ddff46


Collapse of Global Civilization: In March, the Proceedings of the Royal Society, B, published an opinion piece by Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich claiming that over-population, over-consumption, and climate change will lead to the collapse of global civilization. In the 1970s Paul Ehrlich is famous for prophesying that within a few decades over population would result in massive death, destruction, and disease, which did not happen.

To its credit, the Proceedings of the Royal Society, B, published a rebuttal to claims by the Ehrlichs written by a Michael Kelly, a professor of engineering at Oxford University. Kelly stresses the resilience of human nature and that strong economies will continue to develop the engineering and technological advances to offset environmental and other threats.

The authors offer two different world views, one Malthusian, the other along the lines of Julian Simon. Perhaps if there is a collapse of civilization, it will come from believing prophets such as Paul Ehrlich and believing that authoritarian governments of philosopher kings are needed to save civilization. Please see links under To Its Credit.


Heated Wars: Science magazine published another highly questionable study based on un-validated computer models. The study claimed that slight increases in temperature, or changes in perception, will cause a great increase in violence in the form of riots, civil wars, ethnic conflicts, etc. The study is inconsistent with studies of climate history which show, in general, that cold periods are periods of violence, disease, famine, and death, and warm periods, in general, are beneficial to humanity. The combination of warming and increased atmospheric CO2 are increasing harvests, helping to assure plentiful food supply. There are food riots in countries that heavily subsidize food. But these are due to price increases because Western countries are driving up world grain prices by misallocating resources to grow crops for biofuels rather than for human consumption. Please see links under Lowering Standards.


IPCC Personalities: Judith Curry discusses an article in the Financial Times that profiles various personalities associated with the IPCC and its reports. In the article, the head of the scientific section (Working Group I) brings up the current pause in temperature increases and says it will be included in the section. But this is not the major issue. The primary issue is the enormous disconnect between the politically negotiated Summary for Policymakers and the scientific section. Unless the pause is thoroughly discussed in the Summery, we can expect little more than another report that ignores critical science. Please see link under Seeking a Common Ground.


Rating the Blogs: The Society of Environmental Journalists published a rating of the various climate blogs. A dead give-away for its rating system was the repeated use of the word “denier.” According to the authors of the report, Anthony Watts’s blog “is not reliable as a source of factual information.” The statement applies to the society. Please see link under Communicating Better to the Public – Go Personal.


Congress: Just before it went on its August recess, the House of Representatives passed a series of bills to restrict future regulations by the EPA and other agencies. This was symbolic, because it is doubtful the Senate will take up the bills. However, it does show that the House recognizes that the administration’s expansion of regulations are an authoritarian expansion of power. Please see links under The Political Games Continue.


Shale Games: Royal Dutch Shell announced it took a pre-tax $3 Billion write off on its US shale holdings. The company refused to identify the specific shale holdings. It may have been on its holdings in shale formations that produce oil and natural gas by smart drilling. Or it may have been its heavy investments in the Green River Formation, in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado, in which Shell invested significantly to produce kerogen, which must be heated in order to extract fuel from the shale.

No doubt, opponents of development of shale resources will use this loss to claim that shale oil, or gas, is a temporary boom, which it is not. However, each formation is different and must be explored carefully. One thing does stand out. In the US, independent oil and gas companies have far out performed the majors in the development of oil and gas from shale. Please see Article # 3.


Amplifications and Corrections: Last week TWTW carried an article “Refuting the myths of climate change.” The comments failed to note that the article demonstrates that Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology has miscalculated average temperatures in Australia. This type of error may also apply in other countries, leading to a distortion of the surface land record. See: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/07/refuting-the-myths-of-climate-change

Also last week, TWTW linked to Steve McIntyre’s simple model of temperatures, which out performs the global climate models in temperature forecasts. Christopher Essex correctly noted that the global climate models can be scientifically useful because they include a number of other variables. As always, TWTW appreciates such amplifications and corrections.


Number of the Week: $20 Billion. BP announced that it has allocated nearly all of the $20 billion compensation fund it said aside for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill and that mounting costs will reduce future profits. The environmental disaster is a financial disaster for BP. Please see Article # 4.



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. Sea Level Rise Surprise

By S. Fred Singer, American Thinker, Jul 31, 2013


2. The EPA’s Game of Secret Science

The agency pursues rules that will cost billions but refuses to reveal its research. Maybe a subpoena will be needed.

By Lamar Smith, WSJ, Jul 29, 2013


3. Shell Earnings: Energy Giant Falters in Shale

Profit Tumbles 60% as Drilling Problems Lead to Write-Down

By Selina Williams and Justin Scheck, WSJ, Aug 1, 2013


4. BP Says Spill Fund Is Running on Fumes

Payments Related to Gulf Spill Continue to Weigh on Energy Giant

By Justin Scheck, Tom Fowler and Selina Williams, WSU, Jul 30, 2013




Challenging the Orthodoxy

Five or more failed experiments in measuring Global Sea Level: Willie Soon

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Aug 1, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Video presentation.]

Questioning the Orthodoxy

Global Warming: It’s Happening Again

By Dennis Avery, Center for Global Food Issues, Jul 28, 2013


The Age of Hyperbole: How Normal Weather Became ‘Extreme’

A media without shame drives us towards energy poverty.

By Tim Ball and Tom Harris, PJ Media, Jul 30, 2013


Books: Robert Zubrin’s Merchants Of Despair Reveals Racism And Genocide Cloaked In Green Camouflage

Book Review by Larry Bell, Forbes, Jul 31, 2013


Google and dissent

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Aug 2, 2013


Mere Ecologism

Is modern environmentalism science or faith?

Book Review by Steven Hayward, Weekly Standard, Aug 5, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


Problems in the Orthodoxy

The green movement is not pro-science

If we are to win against climate change, greens need to replace spin with sober analysis

By Robert Wilson, Guardian, UK, Jul 30, 2013


Media ‘Green Wars’ Break Out

By Peter Glover, Trending Central, Jul 31, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


Climate Caution Is About the Policies, Not the Science

By Walter Russell Mead, Via Meadia, Aug 2, 2013


Merkel’s Green Shift Backfires as German Pollution Jumps

By Stefan Nicola, Bloomberg, Jul 29, 2013


Seeking a Common Ground

Climate scientists must not advocate particular policies

I became a climate scientist because I care about the environment, but we have a moral obligation to be impartial

By Tamisn Edwards, Guardian, UK, Jul 31, 2013 [H/t Bishop Hill]


Uncertainty: lost in translation

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc., Jul 29, 2013


FT on the IPCC

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc., Aug 2, 2013


Are climate sceptics the real champions of the scientific method?

As part of our series on science and the green movement, Warren Pearce looks at how science is used by their opponents

By Warren Pearce, Guardian, UK, Jul 30, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: Article does not consider that repeated statements of great certainty in the findings as asserted by the climate establishment.]

Tall tales and fat tails

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc., Jul 31, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Models projecting very high future temperatures, and which have a low probability of being correct are being used to implement very costly climate mitigation policies.]

The 97% ‘consensus’: Part II

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc., Jul 27, 2013


Uncertainty: lost in translation

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc., Jul 29, 2013


To Its Credit

Why a collapse of global civilization will be avoided: a comment on Ehrlich & Ehrlich

By Michael J. Kelly PRS B, Jul 31, 2013 [H/t Judith Curry]


Link to original paper: Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?

By Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, PRS B, Mar 7, 2013


Ehrlich & Ehrlich: Can a global collapse of civilization be avoided?

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc., Aug 2, 2013


Lowering Standards

Cool Heads Likely Won’t Prevail in a Hotter, Wetter World: Climate Change Will Likely Exacerbate Violence

By Staff Writer, Science Daily, Aug 1, 2013


Link to paper: Quantifying the Influence of Climate on Human Conflict

By Hsiang, et al., Science, Aug 1, 2013


Hsiang et al Humiliated…Top Experts Deem Paper Claiming That Warming Leads To Conflict Flawed And Exaggerated

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Aug 2, 2013


About that ‘warmer temperatures increase violence’ claim…real world crime data doesn’t support it

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Aug 2, 2013


Social Benefits of Carbon

The Cost of Carbon Denial

Each ton of carbon we use creates thousands of dollars of wealth.

By Robert Zubrin, National Review Online, Jul 31, 2013


Questioning European Green

Celebrity activism

By Martin Livermore, Scientific Alliance, Aug 2, 2013


The battle of Balcombe is of national importance

Editorial, Telegraph, UK, Jul 28, 201


Europe’s Renewable Romance Fades

By David Garman and Samuel Thernsrom, WSJ, Link IWAG, Jul 30, 2013


[SEPP Comment: As more renewables go on the grid, the grid becomes unstable and difficult for operators to balance the load.

UK Shale Gas, Tax Breaks and Coalition Tensions

By: Peter C. Glover, Energy Tribune, Jul 31, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Why should there tax breaks for particular industries?]

Questioning Green Elsewhere

PSNH to end renewable energy rate program

By Staff Writer, AP, Jul 29, 2013 [H/t Tom Sheahen]


“Remarkable that anyone would think a program enabling customers to voluntarily pay more for the same electrons would succeed. Breathtaking idiocy.” Roger Cohen, H/t Tom Sheahen

President Obama’s Climate Plan Would Kill Hundreds Of Millions Of Birds And Bats

By James Taylor, Forbes, Jul 29, 2013


Green Jobs

Going Green Fails Yet Again: Siemens CEO Loses His Job

Editorial, IBD, Jul 31, 2013


[SEPP Comment: An unusual take on green jobs.]

Funding Fights

Environment Ministry Accused Of Sleaze In Awarding Research Contracts Exclusively To Potsdam Climate Institute

By P. Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Jul 30, 2013


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

An event similar to one 15,000 years ago is blamed on global warming today

Posted by Andrew Watts, WUWT, Jul 30, 2013


Global warming to cut snow water storage 56 percent in Oregon watershed

By Staff Writers, Corvallis OR (SPX), Jul 31, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Based on a 3.6 deg F temperature increase.]

NASA predicts 8 degrees of warming in the US by 2100

By Ben Bakker, WUWT, Jul 29, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Predictions used for the National Climate Assessment! Message to NASA. Show me the validated model!]

Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.

Climate change on pace to occur 10 times faster than any change recorded in past 65 million years, Stanford scientists say

By Bjorn Carey Stanford News, Aug 1, 2013 [H/t WUWT]


Without intervention, this extreme pace could lead to a 5-6 degree Celsius spike in annual temperatures by the end of the century.

[SEPP Comment: Their” targeted but broad review” of the scientific literature apparently failed to note no surface warming for over 15 years. Also the researches should check the ice core record of Greenland.]

Study: Sea-level rise threatens 1,400 U.S. cities

How bad is the sea-level rise? Though scientists debate the severity, a new study says at least 316 U.S. cities and towns will be mostly submerged unless pollution can be pulled from the sky.

By Wendy Koch, USA Today, Jul 29, 2013


It’s like this invisible threat,” says author Benjamin Strauss,a scientist at Climate Central, a non-profit, non-advocacy research group based in Princeton, N.J., that’s funded by foundations, individuals and federal grants. He says these sea levels are much higher than what’s predicted this century — typically 1 to 4 feet — because climate change multiplies their impact over hundreds of years.

Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook debunks ‘absurd’ new warmist study claiming 1,700 U.S. cities will be below sea level by 2100 — Easterbrook:

‘The rate used by [Lead Author] Strauss for his predictions is more than 10 times the rate over the past century!

By Don Easterbrook, Climate Depot, Jul 30, 2013


[SEPP Comment: See link immediately above.]

Michigan State claim: Extreme wildfires likely fueled by climate change

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Aug 1, 2013


Communicating Better to the Public – Go Personal.

‘Denier’ blogs

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc., Jul 30, 2013


Models v. Observations

Another Bust: Precipitation Forecasts Come A-Cropper

By Paul Knappenberger and Patrick Michaels, Cato, Aug 1, 2013


Measurement Issues

New papers call into question the global sea surface temperature record

By Staff, The Hockey Schtick, Jul 31, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Such measurement errors we discussed in NIPCC 2008, Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.]

Another uncertainty for climate models – different results on different computers using the same code

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jul 27, 2013


Changing Weather

Cleaner air may have brought more storms

Pollution during the 20th century appears to have suppressed North Atlantic hurricanes

By Cristy Gelling, Science News, Jul 27, 2013


The Best July Weather in Generations for the Northwest?

By Cliff Mass, Weather Blog, Jul 31, 2013


Changing Climate

Ice-free Arctic winters could explain amplified warming during Pliocene

By Staff Writers, Boulder CO (SPX), Jul 31, 2013


[SEPP Comment: The authors claim that the formation of the Isthmus of Panama, which may have caused changes in ocean circulation, is not a viable hypothesis. Then what explains the onset of ice ages when CO2 concentrations were high?]

Changing Seas

The Marshall Islands and their Sea Level Changes

Comment by Nils-Axel Mörner, WUWT, Jul 31, 2013


Drowning in Sea Level Nonsense

By Alan Caruba, Warning Signs, Jul 27, 2013


Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice

Antarctic Shelf-Ice More Stable Than Thought: Potsdam Alarm Stories Becoming Obselete

By Sebastain Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt (Translated/edited with permission by P. Gosselin), No Tricks Zone, Jul 29, 2013


Arctic Ice Growth Since 1971

By Steven Goddard, Real Science, Jul 31, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: The great melt depends on the date of the start of the information.]

Changing Earth

Hot times near Svalbard – Volcanic range discovered

By Jorge of Norway, WUWT, Aug 2, 2013


Review of Recent Scientific Articles by NIPCC

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

Northern Hemisphere Land Snow Cover: Simulations vs. Realit

Reference: Brutel-Vuilmet, C., Menegoz, M. and Krinner, G. 2013. An analysis of present and future seasonal Northern Hemisphere land snow cover simulated by CMIP5 coupled climate models. The Cryosphere 7: 67-80.


[SEPP Comment: Little progress in model capability.]

Rice Cultivar Responses to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment

Reference: Hasegawa, T., Sakai, H., Tokida, T., Nakamura, H., Zhu, C., Usui, Y., Yoshimoto, M., Fukuoka, M., Wakatsuki, H., Katayanagi, N., Matsunami, T., Kaneta, Y., Sato, T., Takakai, F., Sameshima, R., Okada, M., Mae, T. and Makino, A. 2013. Rice cultivar responses to elevated CO2 at two free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) sites in Japan. Functional Plant Biology 40: 148-159.


Ocean Acidification: Separating the Winners from the Losers

Reference: Schlegel, P., Havenhand, J.N, Gillings, M.R. and Williamson, J.E. 2012. Individual variability in reproductive success determines winners and losers under ocean acidification: A case study with sea urchins. PLOS ONE 7: e53118.


[SEPP Comment: Study of the effects of possible lower ocean alkalinity on sea urchins.]

Crustose Coralline Algae in a CO2-Enriched Ocean

Reference: Nash, M.C., Opdyke, B.N., Troitzsch, U., Russell, B.D., Adey, W.H., Kato, A., Diaz-Pulido, G., Brent, C., Gardner, M., Prichard, J. and Kline, D.I. 2012. Dolomite-rich coralline algae in reefs resist dissolution in acidified conditions. Nature Climate Change 3: 268-272.


[SEPP Comment: Contradicting the prevailing opinion.]

The Political Games Continue

House votes to regulate EPA’s energy regulations

By Pete Kasperowicz and Ben Geman, The Hill, Aug 1, 2013


Lawmakers vote to thwart EPA move on ‘social cost of carbon’

By Ben Geman and Pete Kasperowicz, The Hill, Aug 1, 2013


House votes to give Congress power over costly regulations

By Ben Goad, The Hill, Aug 2, 2013


House slams door on carbon tax

By Zack Colman, The Hill, Aug 2, 2013


Litigation Issues

Court tosses Texas, industry challenge to EPA greenhouse gas permitting

By Ben Geman, The Hill, Jul 26, 2013


[SEPP Comment: The court said the states did not have standing to sue – the states failed to show how they would be injured. Apparently, to the court restricting prosperity and economic growth is not injury.]

Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Taxes

A Republican Case for Climate Action

By William Ruckelshaus, Lee Thomas, William Reilly and Christine Whitman, NYT, Aug 1, 2013 [H/t Dennis Manuta]


[SEPP Comment: Ruckelshaus can be remembered for banning DDT by declaring it may cause cancer, unsupported by science. The subsequent ban in many developing countries, engineered by Western countries, resulted in the preventable deaths of millions of people. Reilly can be remembered for persuading President H.W. Bush to attend the 1992 Rio Conference with its UN Framework Convention on Climate Change which declares that developed countries should take the lead in combating climate change. The justifications for the carbon tax reads as if they came from the EPA endangerment finding.]

Jo Nova in The Australian: Carbon credits market is neither free nor worth anything

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Jul 31, 2013


Subsidies and Mandates Forever

Czech Government Votes to End Support for Renewables From 2014

By Ladka Bauerova, Bloomberg, Jul 26, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


EPA and other Regulators on the March

As new EPA chief, Gina McCarthy vows to act on climate change

By Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, Jul 30, 2013 [H/t Conrad Potemra]


McCarthy: EPA will be ‘honest commenter’ on Keystone XL pipeline review

By Ben Geman, The Hill, Jul 30, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Doubtful!]

New EPA chief to business: Embrace ‘opportunity’ of climate change

By Ben Geman, The Hill, Jul 30, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Only for the selected businesses they approve.]

No wonder McCarthy wants to ignore job-killing EPA regulations

Editorial, Washington Examiner, Jul 31, 2013


Climate Change ‘Deniers’ Not Welcome at Interior – Secy. Jewell

By Marlo Lewis, Global Warming.org, Jul 31, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Another open-minded administrator.]

Energy Issues – Non-US

Energy Subsidies and External Costs

By Staff Writers, World Nuclear Association, Jul 23, 2013 [H/t Toshio Fujita]


[SEPP Comment: Breakdown of subsidies, by country, for renewables and nuclear.]

Despite boom, higher costs push Big Oil into slump

By Staff Writers, AP, Aug 2, 2013


Saudis Fresh Prince Freaks Out About U.S. Fracking

Editorial, IBD, Jul 30, 2013


Ontario’s Predictable Energy Disaster; Mortgaged To Falsified Climate Science. The Solution Is Readily Available.

By Tim Ball, A Different Perspective, Aug 2, 2013


Energy Issues — US

Energy Tax Preferences: Rid Them All (Cato letter to House working group revisited)

By Robert Bradley Jr., Master Resource, Jul 29, 2013


Growing Demand Requires Us To Produce More Fossil Fuel

Editorial, IBD, Jul 26, 2013


US Nuclear Power Policy

By Staff Writers, World Nuclear Association, Jul 31, 2013 [H/t Toshio Fujita]


[SEPP Comment: A rather lengthy essay that fails to conclude the US does not have one.]

Washington’s Control of Energy

Energy Secretary Moniz: ‘There’s no war on coal’ (+video)

The Department of Energy aims to push down costs for all low-carbon energy technologies, not prioritize one fuel over another, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said Thursday. The coal industry complains that the Obama administration is anti-coal.

By David J. Unger, The Christian Science Monitor, Aug 1, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Is he that naïve, ignorant of what others in the administration are doing, or what?]

Energy secretary: Natural gas helps battle climate change – for now

By Ben Geman, The Hill, Aug 1, 2013


Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline Flat Out Fails President’s Common-sense Climate Test

By Robert Redford, Huff Post, Jul 25, 2013 [H/t Timothy Wise]


President Obama’s low-ball estimate for Keystone XL jobs

By Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, Jul 30, 2013


Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?

George Mitchell’s Entrepreneurial Edge Unlocked Energy

By Robert Samuelson, IBD, Aug 1, 2013 [H/t Timothy Wise]


[SEPP Comment: Through trial and error, Mitchell developed the techniques for extracting natural gas from dense shale which were later improved upon by the development of precise horizontal drilling.]

The exponential rise in ‘Saudi Texas’s’ oil output continues – production has doubled in only 27 months!

By Mark Perry, AEIdeas, Jul 31, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


Shell’s Shale Write-Down

By Walter Russell Mead, Via Meadia, Aug 1, 2013


The potential prize from fracking is huge

There is bound to be some disruption, but shale gas could cut energy bills and fuel economic recovery

By Michael Fallon, The Telegraph, UK, Jul 31, 2013


Could Natural Gas Fuel a Trucking Revolution?

By Geoffrey Styles, Energy Tribune, Jul 30, 2013


Link to report: IEA sees growth of natural gas in power generation slowing over next 5 years

But ‘Golden Age’ still in full swing as gas emerges as a significant transportation fuel, new report says

By Staff Writers, IEA, Jun 20, 2013


[SEPP Comment: In 2014, Ford will offer an engine designed for natural gas conversion in its very popular F-150 pick-up series. The estimated cost of the conversion is $8000 to $10,000.

Return of King Coal?

The Cloud Begins With Coal – The Big Picture & A New Report

By Mark Mills, Energy Facts, Jul 30, 2013


[SEPP Comment: A secret?]

Oil Spills, Gas Leaks & Consequences

Blowout could tip regulator focus to shallow-water

By Staff Writer, AP, Jul 31, 2013


Gangplank to a Warm Future

By Anthony Ingraffea,, NYT, Jul 28, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Condemning the increased drilling for natural gas. See link immediately below.]

Two Climate Analysts Fault Gas Leaks, but Not as a Big Warming Threat

By Andrew Revkin, Dot Earth, Aug 1, 2013 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


According to TWTW reader Clyde Spencer: Something that appears to have been overlooked in these analyses is that the reason methane has a relatively short residency in the atmosphere is that it is oxidized to CO2. Therefore, it has an initially large GWP, followed by a smaller but more persistent GWP.

[SEPP Comment: See link immediately above.]

Nuclear Energy and Fears

EDF to Exit U.S. Nuclear, Cites Natural Gas Impact

By Staff Writers, Power News, Aug 1, 2013


Nuke experts blast Fukushima operator over leaks

By Staff Writers, Tokyo, Japan (AFP), July 26, 2013


Nuclear Power’s New Friends?

By Joseph Somsel, American Thinker, Aug 2, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Beware of new friends.]

Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind

Turbine Trouble: Ill Wind Blows for German Offshore Industry

By Michael Fröhlingsdorf, Trans Christopher Sultan, Der Spiegel, DE, Aug 2, 2013 [H/t Wind Action]


Half a dozen wind farms are still being built in the North Sea, but there are no follow-up contracts. “The market has collapsed,” says Ronny Meyer, the managing director of Windenergie Agentur (WAB), based in the northern port city of Bremerhaven.

[SEPP Comment: A subsidy twice that of terrestrial wind turbines is not enough!]

Australia to move ahead with massive solar project

By Staff Writers, Sydney (UPI), Jul 31, 2013


Dangerous Negawatts

By Donn Dears, Power for USA, Jul 30, 2013


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Other

High Gasoline Prices and RINs

By Donn Dears, Power for USA, Aug 2, 2013


By now, most people realize that putting corn, a food, into the gas tank is immoral.

The Dirty Politics of “Clean” Energy

By Marita Noon, Townhall, Jul 28, 2013


Carbon Schemes

Carbon Capture and Storage and Climate Change

By Jeffrey Michel, Energy Biz, Jul 30, 2013 [H/t Berol Robinson]


Environmental Industry

Liberal Foundation Distributed Money from Bermuda to Liberal Nonprofits

CAP, Sierra Club, others received money from foreign dark money Sea Change Foundation

By Lachlan Markay, Washington Free Beacon, Aug 1, 2013


[SEPP Comment: A little off-shore money anyone?]

The Environmental Lobby’s Great Forest Con

By Niger Innis, Townhall, Jul 28, 2013


Other News that May Be of Interest

Government Fiddles, Our Nation’s Forests Burn

By Staff Writers, NCPA, Aug 1, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Contrary to what many claim, the burning of US forests is not the result of climate change.]

Hydro Nano Gas Could Completely Neutralize CO2 Emissions

By Staff Writers, Stockholm, Sweden (SPX), Aug 01, 2013


When HNG is injected into fossil fuel burning, the toxic cocktail of pollutant emissions is neutralized

[SEPP Comment: Sounds more like a promotional press release than an accurate report.]



The One-Acre Natural Attractant Mosquito Trap.

Catalog, Hammacher Schlemmer.


[SEPP Comment: How to use CO2 effectively, without harmful chemicals!]

Wash your solar panels for more energy? Not worth it, experts say

By Staff Writers, San Diego (UPI), Jul 31, 2013


[SEPP Comment: If there is a 7.4% loss in 145 days, assuming linear relationship, that would be an 18.6% loss in a year. Now we can play arithmetical games, a 100% loss in 5.4 years? Why bother cleaning the panels if the subsidies continue?]


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 4, 2013 9:10 pm

For Walter Russell Mead, some out of the box thinking about energy policy might be to imagine whatever warming man can cause to be a good, rather than a catastrophe.

August 4, 2013 9:46 pm

Excellent overview. The Roundup makes it clear that the need for skeptics (especially me!) must ramp-up efforts to communicate the failings of alarmist positions and statements. Regina McCarthy (new EPA Director) will hurt skeptic efforts to avoid the crippling disasters enabled by alarmists at least as much as Jackson has. The alarmist attacks on civilization’s ability to survive, let alone it’s growth and progress must continue to be increasingly publicly challenged and stopped, keeping the damage to a minimum – before the damage may become irreversible.
Thanks to all seekers of truth mentioned in the Roundup and their supporters.

Cynical Scientst
August 4, 2013 10:44 pm

I don’t agree that Spencer’s religious beliefs are completely irrelevant, although I did find that line of questioning to be distasteful. One of the criticisms that we subject climate science to after all is that it has become akin to a religious cult. This is a problem is because science based on religious thinking is untrustworthy.
Religious faith involves belief not deduced from rational argument or scientific evidence. Such belief is unfalsifiable. For many ecoactivists it has become a matter of faith that CO2 is damaging the planet. It is almost impossible to persuade someone who believes something as a matter of faith to change their minds. No amount of evidence or rational argument is going to work.
When a scientist has strong religious beliefs (and many do) the thing I want to know is where they draw the boundary between their faith based thinking and their scientific work. To me is creationist has poor boundaries as faith has been allowed to dictate the answer to a question which in my opinion should not be a matter for faith. It raises a question in my mind of whether they have allowed the conclusions they may make in their other scientific work to be contaminated by faith.
That depends on how connected the area that the scientist is working in might be to matters impinging on their faith. I would distrust the scientific impartiality of a biologist who rejected evolution on religious faith based grounds. I would tend to trust a creationist engineer.
So what about climate science? I would provisionally trust a creationist climate scientist. However I’d want to listen very hard to what they had to say about the paleo evidence. Does Spencer’s faith require him to believe in a young planet and a literal historical great flood, as many creationists do? If so then I would probably distrust anything he might have to say about the paleo climate and the history of sea level.

August 4, 2013 11:03 pm

I suspect that “scrumptious” in the head post should be “scrupulous”. But I quite like the way it reads now … 🙂

Bob Shapiro
August 4, 2013 11:45 pm

“If religious beliefs give some scientists the strength to stand up to bitter criticism and to conduct their scientific pursuits scrumptiously…” Should that e scrupulously?

August 5, 2013 12:34 am

Part of being a scientist is being honest. The necessity to separate scientific work and any other personal beliefs or anything else personal in ones life is obviously very important.
Personally, Roy Spencer is someone I would like to know for all his qualities.
In the scientific arena he would make all his data known and acknowledge and correct any and all
errors. Those facts immediately separate him from some of his peers.

August 5, 2013 3:07 am

If religious beliefs give some scientists the strength to stand up to bitter criticism and to conduct their scientific pursuits scrumptiously, so be it.
Umm? should that read SCRUPULOUSLY….

Jeff L
August 5, 2013 5:43 am

“Quote of the Week: “Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm — but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.” (T.S. Eliot) ”
A similar quote is ” The road to hell is paved with good intentions “, although I don’t know who to attribute that quote to. As it relates to CAGW, I think many of the CAGW theory leaders are driving the steamroller.
Eliot clearly saw this behavior many generations before our own. As it relates to CAGW theory, it speaks to me that there are probably many believers who will never be swayed to abandoning the theory, regardless of how compelling the science is the CAGW theory is wrong, because there is something in their deeper psyche driving their actions.

more soylent green!
August 5, 2013 7:16 am

Here’s what’s going on:
CO2 is rising, but the climate is not getting warmer. Sea level rise is not accelerating. Weather is not getting more extreme.
New oil and gas reserves are being discovered. New techniques and technologies are being invented to make more and more oil and gas recoverable everyday. A few years ago, we faced the possibility of only a few decades of recoverable oil reserves. Now we have centuries of it.
In summary, two of the biggest arguments to stop using carbon fuels — the threat of climate disaster and the scarcity of resources — have no basis in the real world. It’s panic time for the rent-seekers, redistributionists, the global social-engineering advocates and other climate mongers. They need to get their agenda implemented now, and implemented in such a way that it’s nearly impossible to turn back.

Chad Wozniak
August 5, 2013 9:44 am

I always have to laugh when someone says skeptics are religious zealots – as an atheist myself, AND a confirmed skeptic, I am proof of the falsity of any such assertion

August 5, 2013 9:50 am

Cynical Scientst says:
August 4, 2013 at 10:44 pm
“When a scientist has strong religious beliefs (and many do) the thing I want to know is where they draw the boundary between their faith based thinking and their scientific work. To me is creationist has poor boundaries as faith has been allowed to dictate the answer to a question which in my opinion should not be a matter for faith. It raises a question in my mind of whether they have allowed the conclusions they may make in their other scientific work to be contaminated by faith. ”
Stating that despite the incredible odds against it, the constants in the standard model have taken just the right values for the existence of a complex universe purely by chance, and that despite the long odds against it, that life has sprung into existence by chance, is a statement of faith – faith in blind luck.
I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it is excrutiatingly unlikely. For now, science has no explanation.

August 5, 2013 9:54 am

Cynical Scientst says:
August 4, 2013 at 10:44 pm
“So what about climate science? I would provisionally trust a creationist climate scientist. However I’d want to listen very hard to what they had to say about the paleo evidence. Does Spencer’s faith require him to believe in a young planet and a literal historical great flood, as many creationists do?”
Does a faith in blind luck REQUIRE you to believe something? If so, what does it require you to believe?

Brian H
August 5, 2013 1:37 pm

conduct their scientific pursuits scrumptiously

scrupulously, perhaps? Less tasty, more relevant. 😀

Brian H
August 5, 2013 2:03 pm

For the umpty-twoth time, will you PULEEZE stop linking to paywalled WSJ articles, and wasting my time?

August 9, 2013 2:06 am

At August 5, 2013 at 9:54 am

Does a faith in blind luck REQUIRE you to believe something? If so, what does it require you to believe?

I suggest you look up the definitions of “faith” and “belief”. You will then understand why your question is meaningless; i.e. it presupposes the existence of something which does not exist (in this case, faith without belief).
Your question is unanswerable for the same logical reason that there is no answer to the question;
“What is the name of the Pope’s wife?”

Verified by MonsterInsights