Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup

The Week That Was: 2014-01-18 (January 18, 2014) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project


Quote of the Week: If you wish to converse with me, define your terms. — Voltaire, H/t Gordon Cheyne, in Master Resource

Number of the Week: 679 – 23

No Consensus? Nature magazine published an article by Jeff Tollefson on the failure of the earth’s surface to warm for the past 16 years that contained an interesting sentence: That has led sceptics — and some scientists — to the controversial conclusion that the models might be overestimating the effect of greenhouse gases, and that future warming might not be as strong as is feared. Could this be a first indication that Nature recognizes that there are qualified scientists who are skeptical of the work of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the claim that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases are causing unprecedented and dangerous global warming? If so, is this an admission that there is no consensus as frequently claimed? One must be careful not to read too much into this sentence least that person be grouped with those military analysts who spent their cold war military careers looking for changes in Soviet policy by carefully dissecting sentences in the communist newspaper, Pravda.

To a limited extent, the article discusses some possible causes for the failure of the earth’s surface to warm including changes in the trade winds over the tropical Pacific, which change cloudiness. When there are more clouds, the sun’s energy is reflected back into space. When there are less clouds, more energy reaches the oceans, resulting in warming. Roy Spencer has long discussed that slight changes in cloudiness will have dramatic effects.

Other suggestions include changes in the sun, volcanoes emitting aerosols (fine particles and liquid droplets) that have a cooling effect (no major volcanoes noted), and China emitting aerosols (pollution).

Although the article offers no rigorous explanation of the possible causes, at least it brings up the issue that nature has failed to obey human-created climate models. Though not discussed, the article creates a question about the IPCC Summary for Policymakers with its claim in 2007 (Fourth Assessment Report – AR4) of 90% certainty and in 2013 (Fifth Assessment Report – AR5) of 95% certainty that humans are the cause of global warming/climate change. The question is: What is meant by this certainty? There are many issues of natural variation that are not discussed in the reports.

The article contained comments by members of the climate establishment who gave excuses why the models fail to perform, not rigorous explanations of what must be done to the models to give them predictive value. “If you are interested in global climate change, your main focus ought to be on timescales of 50 to 100 years,” says Susan Solomon, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. Solomon was a drafting author of AR4 which expressed 90% certainty in its work.

The key period of the 2007 assertion certainty was late 20th century surface warming of a little more than 20 years – about 1976 to 1998. Now Solomon says periods of 50 to 100 years are needed. Does this mean that the certainty expressed in the IPCC AR4 and AR5 Summary for Policymakers are hasty conclusions? See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and Problems in the Orthodoxy.


Warming Trend or Jolt? Writing in Master Resource, Robert Bradley Jr. discusses an article by Richard Kerr, a long-time writer for Science, “What Happened to Global Warming? Scientists Say Just Wait a Bit,” which was published in the October 1, 2009 edition of the magazine. The article contained the statement: In the HadCRUT3 temperature record, the world warmed by 0.07°C±0.07°C from 1999 through 2008, not the 0.20°C expected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Corrected for the natural temperature effects of El Niño and its sister climate event La Niña, the decade’s trend is a perfectly flat 0.00°C.

The EPA finding that greenhouse gas emissions, principally CO2, are causing unprecedented and dangerous global warming endangering human health and welfare was made two months later, on December 7, 2009. Too late for the courts, the recognition that prior to the endangerment finding the temperature record had no trend for a decade is an increasing piece of history and illustrates the lack of thoroughness of EPA science. See link under Questioning the Orthodoxy.


Hearings: The Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee held a hearing on the President’s Climate Action Plan. Most of the time was spent on typical posturing by politicians and bureaucrats. The testimony by Judith Curry and global warming advocate Andrew Dessler may be of particular interest. See link under Seeking a Common Ground.


The Anti-Science Challenge: One incident coming from the Senate testimony is an anti-science challenge. Writing in the New York Times, Michael “Hockey-Stick” Mann labeled Judith Curry’s testimony as anti-science. Curry has taken the challenge: JC challenge to MM: Since you have publicly accused my Congressional testimony of being ‘anti-science,’ I expect you to (publicly) document and rebut any statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide.

During the Hearing, Senator Whitehouse asked me a question about why people refer to me as a ‘contrarian.’ I said something like the following: Skepticism is one of the norms of science. We build confidence in our theories as they are able to withstand skeptical challenges. If instead scientists defend their theories by calling their opponents names, well that is a sign that their theories are in trouble.


Anti-science is a murky word, with a number of connotations. An excerpt from the wikipedia article on Antiscience:

The question often lies in how much scientists conform to the standard ideal of “communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, originality, and… skepticism”. Unfortunately, “scientists don’t always conform… scientists do get passionate about pet theories; they do rely on reputation in judging a scientist’s work; they do pursue fame and gain via research”. Thus, they may show inherent biases in their work.

From the Rational Wiki article on Antiscience:

Anti-science proponents often attack science through: Attempts to discredit the scientists themselves. Attempts to use flawed arguments, such as argumentum ad populum to prove the position correct even if it has no scientific basis. Attempts to label scientific ideas as conspiracy theories.


JC message to MM: If you want to avoid yourself being labeled as ‘anti-science’, I suggest that you are obligated to respond to my challenge.

A conspiracy buff may wonder if the New York Times, and other outlets, provide a forum for Mr. Mann in order to discredit science in general, and climate science in particular. If so, he is doing a good job. See link under Oh Mann!


Climate Vortex: The claim that global warming is causing more extreme cold events continues to reverberate. President Obama is scheduled to give his State of the Union address at 9 pm on Tuesday. Weather forecasts have Washington receiving another blast of cold air that day, with nighttime temperatures falling to about 11ºF (-12 ºC). [This is about 17ºF (10ºC, allow for rounding) below the mid-January normal low is about 28ºF (-2 ºC).] Will the President follow his chief science advisor and blame the cold on global warming? See links under Climate Vortex – Whirlpool, Cyclone, or Quagmire?


Base Load: Much has been written about natural gas replacing coal as the fuel of choice for producing electricity in the US. Economics professor Mark Perry brings up an excellent point regarding this shift. During severe cold weather, the price of natural gas spikes, causing the costs of generating electricity to spike. Perry gives some illustrations. He argues for using nuclear power plants for base load, because they are not subject to price spikes. [Base load is the electricity generation 24 hours a day 7 days a week, except for scheduled maintenance.] The same could be said for using modern coal-fired power plants, which the EPA will oppose. See link under Nuclear Energy and Fears


Wind Power: The web site, Master Resource has a 4 part series based on a letter Glen Schleede sent to the Senate Finance Committee exposing the economically destructive and foolish tax subsidies being considered by the Committee on behalf of so-called “clean energy” – producing electricity without generating carbon dioxide. The summary and part two on the high cost and low value of wind power were posted with the other two parts coming next week.

The main points brought up thus far are:

• Electricity from wind is high in true cost and low in true value.

• Massive wealth transfers harming ordinary taxpayers and electric customers.

• Misdirecting billions in capital investments dollars.

• High electricity prices that are particularly hard on low income people.

• Adverse environmental, ecological, scenic, and property values impacts.

See link under Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind


Energy Policy: Former oil man and wind energy advocate, T. Boone Pickens points out that it has been over 40 years since President Nixon called for a national energy policy. Washington has had energy policies but not one singularly identified. Among the many policies are denial, advocacy, and benign neglect. These policies can be rated according to two standards: that which promotes Washington control and that which promotes general prosperity of the nation. The two standards suggested here are not absolute, but they give a starting point for evaluation.

The oil industry along the northern slope of Alaska is an example of denial. After the great success of the initial development of oil and the Alaska pipeline, Washington started to deny further exploration and development. The deliberate reduction in oil development is reaching the point at which it is questionable if the pipeline can be kept open in the future. It is having a negative effect on the budget of the state, which receives royalties. Each time proposals are made in Congress to open the North Slope to further development, the proponents are shouted down that it would take ten years. Washington’s game have been going on for over a decade. It is an excellent illustration of Washington power and indifference to general prosperity.

The heavy subsidies to wind and solar power are examples of advocacy. The central problem of storage of electricity on an inexpensive, commercial scale has not been solved. After two decades of subsidies, wind and solar cannot stand on their own. Green jobs did not materialize in quantities promised, and they are not sustainable without subsidies or mandates. Wind and solar are examples of Washington’s power and indifference to general prosperity. Perhaps what is needed is the requirement that all Federal buildings and official Washington rely only on wind and solar, with no back-up. Eventually, all but the most obtuse politicians and bureaucrats would grasp the problem.

The development of techniques for extracting oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids from dense shale is an example benign neglect. Some in Washington claim credit, but the success is on private and state-owned lands, outside of control from Washington. There is no need for subsidies or mandates. The contribution to general prosperity is becoming more evident monthly, unemployment rates in areas with the greatest activity are far below the national or regional rates. In his article, Pickens bring up the natural gas revolution that switched him from being a wind power promoter. See links under Energy Issues – US.


Number of the Week: 679 – 23. According to Senator Tom Coburn (R., Okla.), the Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the US government has 679 renewable energy programs from 23 different agencies costing $15 billion a year. Who says the Federal government does not have an energy policy? It has at least 679. See link under Green Jobs.



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. Alaska to Invest in Natural Gas Project

State to Pay Up to $5.7 Billion for Stake in LNG Plant

By Cassandra Sweet, WSJ, Jan 15, 2014


2. Arctic Passage Opens Challenges for U.S. Military

Thinning Polar Ice Expected to Give Way to New Commercial Waterways and Resource-Rich Frontier

By Julian Barnes, WSJ, Jan 12, 2014


3. No Quick Fix for China’s Air Quality

By Andrew Browne, WSJ, Jan 14, 2014




Science: Is the Sun Rising?

New Paper Says Sun Is Behind the Pause

Reduced solar activity may be behind the global warming pause according to a new paper by Peter Stauning of the Danish Meteorological Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark.

By Reporting Climate Science.com, Jan 14, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Link to paper: Reduced Solar Activity Disguises Global Temperature Rise

By Peter Stauning, Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, Jan 2014


Suppressing Scientific Inquiry

AGW inquisition burns a journal, Pattern Recognition in Physics

By Luboš Motl, Reference Frame, Jan 17, 2014


The Copernicus-PRP fiasco: predictable and preventable

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jan 19, 2014


[SEPP Comment: An up-to-date account on an effort to suppress scientific inquiry.]

Challenging the Orthodoxy

Another year of global cooling

Falling temperatures are giving climate alarmists chills

By David Deming, Washington Times, Jan 16, 2014 [H/t NCTCSP]


IPCC WG3 plans to suck excess CO2 and kill 1 billion people

By Luboš Motl, Reference Frame, Jan 16, 2014


[SEPP Comment: The word kill may be a bit strong, but the IPCC scenario is science fiction.]

Defending the Orthodoxy

Biggest Emitter China Best on Climate, Figueres Says

By Sangwon Yoon, Bloomberg, Jan 14, 2014


Climate Theology

By Steven Hayward, Power Line, Jan 16, 2014


UNFCC boss: democracy is “very detrimental” for war on AGW

Chinese communism is the best decision-making system

By Luboš Motl, Reference Frame, Jan 14, 2014


UN climate chief: Communism is best to fight global warming

By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, Jan 15, 2014


UN climate chief calls for tripling of clean energy investment

Christiana Figueres says $1 trillion a year is required for the transformation needed to stay within 2C of warming

By Suzanne Goldenberg, Guardian, UK, Jan 14, 2014


Questioning the Orthodoxy

Falsifiability in my lifetime

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Jan 16, 2014


Freezing Is the New Warming

By Robert Tracinski, Real Clear Politics, Jan 13, 2014


Water is the Weather Wildcard

By Viv Forbes, American Thinker, Jan 10, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Richard Kerr (Science) in 2009: Warming ‘Pause’ About to Be Replaced by ‘Jolt’

By Robert Bradley Jr. Master Resource, Jan 14, 2014


Global Warming A Back Door To Socialism – And Now Even The UN Admits It

Editorial, IBD, Jan 16, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Maurice Newman: Mother Nature Suggests The Party’s Over For The IPCC

By Maurice Newman, The Australian, Via GWPF, Jan 15, 2014


Social Benefits of Carbon

Bad news for Michael Mann’s ‘treemometers’ ?

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jan 15, 2014


Problems in the Orthodoxy

Climate change: The case of the missing heat

Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.

By Jeff Tollefson, Nature, Jan 15, 2014 [H/t WUWT]


The journal Nature embraces ‘the pause’ and ocean cycles as the cause, Trenberth still betting his heat will show up

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jan 16, 2014


Cold Comfort On Global Warming

By Myron Ebell, Standpoint Magazine, Jan-Feb 2014


EU In Full Retreat On Climate Policy

By Staff Writers, EU-Info News, Translation, Philipp Mueller, Via GWPF, Jan 13, 2014


EU retreats on global warming while US pushes ahead

By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, Jan 14, 2014


Seeking a Common Ground

Out of control

By John Brignell, Number Watch, Jan 12, 2014 and

The cliché of our age – Worse than previously thought



The Realism of Global Optimism

By Bjørn Lomborg, Project Syndicate, Jan 16, 2014


New data from the World Bank show that the proportion of extremely poor people has more than halved over the last 30 years, from 42% of the global population in 1981 to 17% in 2010.

[SEPP Comment: The UN and World Bank leaders are blissfully unaware.]

Global Warming is REAL but NOT a Big DEAL

By Ira Glickstein, WUWT, Jan 12, 2014


Senate EPW Hearing on the President’s Climate Action Plan

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Jan 16, 2014


Review of Recent Scientific Articles by NIPCC

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

A 16-Year History of Coral Bleaching in Moorea, French Polynesia

Reference: Pratchett, M.S., McCowan, D., Maynard, J.A. and Heron, S.F. 2013. Changes in bleaching susceptibility among corals subject to ocean warming and recurrent bleaching in Moorea, French Polynesia. PLOS ONE 8: e70443.


Simulating California (USA) Extreme Heat Conditions

Reference: Grotjahn, R. 2013. Ability of CCSM4 to simulate California extreme heat conditions from evaluating simulations of the associated large scale upper air pattern. Climate Dynamics 41: 1187-1197.


Westerly Biases Over the Equatorial Atlantic

Reference: Zermeño-Diaz, D.M. and Zhang, C. 2013. Possible root causes of surface westerly biases over the equatorial Atlantic in global climate models. Journal of Climate 26: 8154-8168.


Cold-Water Corals of Chile

Reference: Jantzen, C., Haussermann, V., Forsterra, G., Laudien, J., Ardelan, M., Maier, S. and Richter, C. 2013. Marine Biology 160: 2597-2607.


Models v. Observations

What Causes the Atlantic to Bloom?

Scientists find surprising trigger for spring plant growth

By Cheryl Dybas, Lonny Lippsett, Oceanus, Jan 15, 2014

Using data from her colleagues’ study site, her models confirmed that eddies were the underlying cause of the stratification and blooms that they saw.

[SEPP Comment: Models confirm data?]

Measurement Issues

Scientists Call November 2013 Alleged Record “A Flop”: Far From Record Warmest…Series Of Problems With Surface Stations

Warmest November since measurements began? An analysis of global satellite data leads to a different conclusion

By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt, Trans P. Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Jan 11, 2013


Changing Weather

Flooding chaos is down to David Cameron, not climate change

The Environment Agency’s failure to dredge clogged-up rivers is causing floods

By Christopher Booker, Telegraph, UK, Jan 11, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: The government failure is not from failing to act on climate change, but from failing to dredge rivers. Also, discussion of plans to expand the power of the EU.]

NOAA “state of the climate” report: Contiguous US average temperature plummeted 2.9F in 2013

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jan 16, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Will it be mentioned in President Obama’s State of the Union speech.]

Extreme Drought in California

By Cliff Mass Weather Blog, Jan 17, 2014


Fitch: California Drought to Take a Toll on Hydropower Generators

By Sonal Patel, Power Magazine, Jan 16, 2014


UK Flooding: No Climate Link

By David Whitehouse, GWPF, Jan 14, 2014


Changing Climate

From the book “Omega – Murder of the Eco-system and the Suicide of Man, Paul K Anderson, 1971

Controlling the Planet’s Climate

By John Brignell, Number Watch, No Date [H/t Dennis Ambler]


[SEPP Comment: Ideas from another age – to promote the control of weather in fear of the onset of a new ice age. The World Meteorological Organization was formed at that time, in 1961. One of the suggested changes was to engineer the disappearance of Arctic ice.]


Changing Seas

An Illustrated Introduction to the Basic Processes that Drive El Niño and La Niña Events

By Bob Tisdale, WUWT, Jan 10, 2014


Coral chemical warfare: Suppressing a competitor enhances susceptibility to a predator

By Staff Writers, Atlanta GA (SPX), Jan 14, 2014


Link to paper: Competition induces allelopathy but suppresses growth and anti-herbivore defence in a chemically rich seaweed

By Rasher and Hay, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Feb 2014


Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice

Emperor Penguins breeding on ice shelves

By Staff Writers, London, UK (SPX), Jan 13, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Have they never done this before?]

Un-Science or Non-Science?

Europe to suffer from more severe and persistent droughts

By Staff Writers, Brussels, Belgium (SPX), Jan 13, 2014


Link to paper: Ensemble projections of future streamflow droughts in Europe

By Forzieri, et al. Hydrology and Earth Systems, 2014


Giant Antarctic glacier beyond point of no return

By Staff Writers, Paris (AFP), Jan 12, 2014


Lowering Standards

BBC’s six-year cover-up of secret ‘green propaganda’ training for top executives

By David Rose, Mail, UK, Jan 11, 2013


Row over BBC climate change conference ‘cover up’

The BBC is dragged into a row over its coverage of climate change after spending thousands of pounds trying to keep details of an “eco conference” attended by top executives secret

By Graeme Paton, Telegraph, UK, Jan 12, 2014


Dems Want Networks To Manipulate Climate Coverage Like BBC

Editorial, IBD, Jan 15, 2014


Climate Comedy?

Ship of Fools

By Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, Jan 15, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Perhaps the definitive on this Antarctic misadventure and its leaders.]

Ship of Fools in the Antarctic

By Jack Kelly, Real Clear Politics, Jan 12, 2014


Game finally up for carboncrats

By Tom Switzer, Sydney Morning Herald, Jan 14, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Climate Vortex – Whirlpool, Cyclone, or Quagmire?

The Polar Vortex: Myth and Reality

By Cliff Mass Weather Blog, Jan 13, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Cliff Mass is hardly a skeptic of human induced global warming, but he gives a good description of the silliness of the claim that a polar vortex is descending on the US. He amusingly creates the term anti-vortex on the west coast – is it similar to anti-matter?]

It’s The Circumpolar Vortex Not The Polar Vortex And Other PR Deceptions

By Tim Ball, WUWT, Jan 13, 2014


No pattern found in Northern Hemisphere atmospheric blocking and weather extremes

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Jan 10, 2014


Hot Air About Cold Air

By Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger, CATO, Jan 16, 2014


‘Polar vortex’ that caused record cold is related to solar activity, not man-made CO2

The Hockey Schtick, Jan 11, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


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

‘Climate Change’: Unpacking a Political Term (looking through the looking glass)

By Wayne Lusvardi, Master Resource, Jan 15, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Clarifying some sloppy definitions.]

Climate Change Disbelief Rises in America

By Stephanie Pappas, Yahoo News, Jan 16, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


[SEPP Comment: No doubt, greater exaggeration will achieve greater belief.]

Major newspaper coverage of climate change plummeted last year

By John Upton, Grist, Jan 15, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: Lamenting the decline in global warming coverage, as global warming stopped.]

Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.

Climate Council’s Deceitful Duplicitous Fraudulent Fibbing

Or Where’s the Data? In Fact Where/s the Report?

By Geoff Brown, NCTCSP, Jan 17, 2014


NYT Pushes the Rising Tide of Climate Nonsense – This time in the Dominican Republic

By Kip Hansen, WUWT, Jan 14, 2014


Communicating Better to the Public – Go Personal.

A conservative conspiracy around every corner?

By Martin Morse Wooster, Philanthropy Daily, Jan 7, 2014 [H/t Joe Bast]


Expanding the Orthodoxy

The scientific abomination that is the “Circumpolar Monitoring Framework for Polar Bears”

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Jan 14, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Life is short. An international commission is not so cursed (or blessed)?

Questioning European Green

Fuelling the future

By Martin Livermore, Scientific Alliance, Jan 17, 2014


Consumers Rebel – Germany’s Leading Daily Launches Campaign Against Exorbitantly High Electricity Prices!

By P. Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Jan 14, 2014


Green Fade-Out: Europe to Ditch Climate Protection Goals

By Gregor Peter Schmitz, Spiegel Online, Jan 15, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: Typical propaganda photo accompanying an article on carbon dioxide with chimneys billowing dark steam.]

Questioning Green Elsewhere

Climate Protection May Cut World GDP 4% by 2030, UN Says

By Alex Morale, Bloomberg, Jan 16, 2014


Green Jobs

Congress Turns Spotlight to Government Waste

Hearing exposes billions in wasteful spending

By Elizabeth Harrington, Washington Free Beacon, Jan 9, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


The Political Games Continue

Sen. Inhofe on Obama’s Global Warming Claims: ‘The President Just Made that Up’

By Craig Bannister, CNS News, Jan 16, 2014 [H/t ICECAP]


[SEPP Comment: Challenging EPA to provide evidence to support false claims by the President.]

Inhofe: ‘Fewer and fewer’ senators believe in global warming

By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, Jan 13, 2014


Senate Dems to set up global warming task force

By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, Jan 9, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Subsidies and Mandates Forever

Blown away? US suspends wind power subsidies, for now

By Staff Writers, Washington (AFP), Jan 15, 2014


EPA and other Regulators on the March

CO2 Regulation News from the Federal Register

By Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels , CATO, Jan 14, 2014


Emails Show Extensive Collaboration Between EPA, Environmentalist Orgs

Top officials coordinate messaging, help groups gather petitions

By Lachian Markay, Washington Free Beacon, Jan 15, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


[SEPP Comment: Coffee at Starbucks?]

EPA Administrator Can’t Say Whether Global Temperatures Are Increasing

By Staff Writers, Washington Free Beacon, Jan 16, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Not qualified – to be responsible for EPA decisions?]

McCarthy Dodges Environmentalist Coordination Questions

Republicans press EPA chief on apparent collusion with far-left groups

By Lachlan Markay, Washington Free Beacon, Jan 16, 2014


EPA’s Final Regional Haze Rule for Wyoming Proves Costly for Coal Plants

By Sonal Patel, Power Magazine, Jan 16, 2014


McCarthy Defends EPA Tactics to Tamp Down Power Plant Carbon Pollution

By Sonal Patel, Power Magazine, Jan 16, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Publications such as Power Magazine use terms such as carbon pollution, demonstrates the success of EPA propaganda.]

Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers Ignore Science

By Staff Writer, NCPA, Jan 13, 2014


Link to report: EPA and the Corps Ignoring Sound Science on Critical Clean Water Act Regulations

By Daren Bakst, Heritage Foundation, Jan 8, 2014


EPA issues hazardous waste-tracking regs

By Ben Goad, The Hill, Jan 15, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Needed.]

Energy Issues – Non-US

No shortage of energy as emissions rise: BP

By Robin Webster, Carbon Brief, Jan 15, 2014


[UK Business Secretary] Vince Cable: Soaring Energy Costs Big Problem for UK Manufacturing

By Shane Croucher, International Business Times, Jan 16, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Germany: How Energy Polices Can Harm The Economy

By Bruno Waterfield, Telegraph, UK, Jan 17, 2014


Germany is a cautionary tale of how energy polices can harm the economy

Despite Germany’s shift to renewable solar and wind energies, and amid a recession, its carbon emissions rose by 1.8pc last year

By Bruno Wateerfield, Telegraph, UK, Jan 16, 2014 [H/t Bishop Hill]


Is the energy business being renationalised?

By Nick Butler, Financial Post, Jan 12, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Energy Issues — US

40 Years in the Energy Desert

By T. Boone Pickens, Real Clear Politics, Jan 16, 2014


States revolt against EPA’s global warming agenda

By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, Jan 16, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Good news for 2014 — a domestic energy revolution is underway in the USA

By Nathan Mehrens, Fox News, Jan 2, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Overly optimistic about the inability of the opposition to thwart these efforts.]

US officials call for more safety for oil by rail

By Staff Writers, AP, Jan 16, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


US carbon emissions rose 2 percent in 2013

By Laura Barron-Lopez, The Hill, Jan 13, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Certainly not in response to a booming economy.]

Washington’s Control of Energy

Canada Is Tired Of Obama’s Keystone XL Pipeline Delays

Editorial, IBD, Jan 17, 2014


Examiner Editorial: Obama moves closer to killing coal industry

Washington Examiner, Jan 9, 2014


Murkowski calls for updating ‘antiquated’ energy trade policies

By Ramsey Cox, The Hill, Jan 15, 2014


U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production in Federal and Non-Federal Areas

By Marc Humphries, CRS, Mar 7, 2013


Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?

The Wright stuff,

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Jan 14, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Tough statements by the boss of an American shale gas company on the possibility of shale gas in England.]

Acid mine drainage reduces radioactivity in fracking waste

By Staff Writers, Durham, NC (SPX), Jan 14, 2014


Link to paper: Radium and Barium Removal through Blending Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids with Acid Mine Drainage

By Kondash, et al. Environmental Science and Technology, Dec 24, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Enough to drive an enviro mad!]

Lancashire Demands Bigger Slice Of Shale Profits

By Michael Savage, The Times, Via GWPF, Jan 14, 2014


[SEPP Comment: From opposition to greed: first, smart drilling would not work in Britain; now, communities want more in royalties from what many claimed would not work.]

New study: U.S. power plant emissions down

Press Release by Staff, Univ. Colorado, Jan 9, 2014 [H/t WUWT]


[SEPP Comment: Who would have thought that burning less carbon per unit of energy released would produce less carbon dioxide?]

Return of King Coal?

Coal’s Generation Market Share Rises To 39.1% In 2013 And May Break 40% In 2014

By John Hanger, Facts of the Day, Jan 9, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Energy future is in innovation, not regulation

By Kipp Coddington, The Hill, Jan 9, 2014


[SEPP Comment: CO2 injection into existing wells is regionally very limited.]

Coal’s New Best Friends: An Environmentalist and Obama’s EPA

By Michael Krancer, Forbes, Jan 9, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Nonsense, all based on the assumption that CCS works. It has not been tested on a commercial scale. See link immediately above.]

Nuclear Energy and Fears

To Balance Energy Demand, We Need Nuclear Power

By Mark Perry, IBD, Jan 16, 2014


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind

Energy Tax Reform: Scrap the Baucus Proposal (Part II: High cost/low value of windpower)

By Robert Bradley Jr., Master Resource, Jan 17, 2014


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Other

Incipient Clean Energy Grid Problems

By Donn Dears, Power for USA, Jan 17, 2014


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Vehicles

New Year, New Buzz

By Donn Dears, Power for USA, Jan 14, 2014


[SEPP Comment: See comment at the bottom on water as a possible source for hydrogen.]

Carbon Schemes

Chasing the Dream of Half-Price Gasoline from Natural Gas

A startup called Siluria thinks it’s solved a mystery that has stymied huge oil companies for decades.

By Kevin Bullis, MIT Technology Review, Jan 15, 2014


California Dreaming

$5.4 Billion in Solar: California Goes All In

By Jerry Graf, Master Resource, Jan 13, 2013


Oh Mann!

Mann on advocacy and responsibility

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Jan 18, 2014


Environmental Industry

Sierra Club Pressed EPA to Create Impossible Coal Standards

Environmentalist suggested EPA head was lying when she told reporters coal would remain viable under new standards

By CJ Ciaramella, Washington Fee Beacon, Jan 10, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Germany’s Greens help the coal industry, while the US cut emissions by ignoring the greens

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Jan 12, 2014


Environmental groups say Obama needs to address climate change more aggressively

By Juliet Eilperin and Lenny Bernstein, Washington Post, Jan 16, 2014


MoveOn Announces Effort to Slow Fracking Boom

Fracking propelling country toward domestically produced energy abundance

By Lachian Markay, Washington Free Beacon, Jan 10, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


If You Think Communism Is Bad For People, Check Out What It Did To The Environment

By Colin Brabow, Federalist, Jan 13, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


The WWF: Still Donning the Science Costume

By Donna Laframboise, NFC, Jan 15, 2014


Other Scientific News

The Trouble With ‘Scientific’ Research Today: A Lot That’s Published Is Junk

By Henry Miller and S. Stanley Young, Forbes, Jan 8, 2014 [H/t ASCH]


The state of scientific research today

By Staff Writers, ACSH, Jan 10, 2014


Other News that May Be of Interest

A Report Card for Humanity: 1900-2050

21 economists crunch the numbers on 10 of the world’s most bedeviling problems.

By Bjorn Lomborg, Atlantic, Jan 8, 2014 [H/t David Lessman]


Al Gore: Geoengineering to ward off climate change is “insane”

By Laura Barron-Lopez, The Hill, Jan 16, 2014


[SEPP Comment: If the statement refers to global warming, which is no longer happening, SEPP agrees.]



Honest Crooks Join The Climate Con

By Tony Thomas, Quadrant, Jan 14, 2014


New studies explore conscious and unconscious links between weather and climate change attitudes

By Ros Donald, Carbon Brief, Jan 16, 2014


The seven deadly sinners driving global warming

By Kate Ravillious, New Scientist, Jan 15, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Identifying those guilty of driving the world out of the Little Ice Age, if you assume the CO2 hypothesis.]

Washington D.C. not only a source of hot air, but now “planet killing methane” too,

By Anthon Watts, WUWT, Jan 16, 2014



0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 19, 2014 6:36 pm

Pravda was one thing, the world wide UN love fest of incest by the msm commies and the UN one world greed cult is a 10,000 times bigger problem for all of us.

January 19, 2014 7:06 pm

‘That has led sceptics — and some scientists — to the controversial conclusion that the models might be overestimating the effect of greenhouse gases, and that future warming might not be as strong as is feared.’
No it not a indication that there is any doubt about what 97% of climate science says or inconsistent of the 10,000 published papers put out last year. What is says (if you read it in context) is that skeptics have made an incorrect conclusion based on insufficient data. Skeptics should be looking at totality of the heat imbalance of the planet on not concentrate on surface temperatures as a proxy for the heat imbalance.

January 19, 2014 7:30 pm

Is the clown academy suggesting that genuine sceptical inquiry is unscientific. Weep, Newton.

Glen Horvat
January 19, 2014 8:47 pm

“That has led sceptics — and some scientists —…. “. Sp sceptics are not scientists and visa- versa. I think Nature’s true colors are shining through with this statement.

January 19, 2014 9:08 pm

‘sceptics are not scientists’. I think that is a correct statement (in general) 97 percent of climate scientists are not skeptics (in relation to their chosen field of study – namely climate change)

January 19, 2014 9:14 pm

Nature magazine published an article by Jeff Tollefson on the failure of the earth’s surface to warm for the past 16 years that contained an interesting sentence:

That has led sceptics — and some scientists — to the controversial conclusion that the models might be overestimating the effect of greenhouse gases, and that future warming might not be as strong as is feared.

Glen Horvat and flyingtigercomics picked up on this.
But my take is that somehow the concept that Intersection (Skeptics, Scientists) is an Empty Set is something not only Jeff Tollefson wrote, but passed peer review and editorial review

January 19, 2014 9:45 pm

Many sceptics were sceptical of the mainstream climate science long before the halt in warming was identified. For those sceptics, the failure of Earth to warm did not [lead] sceptics to the controversial conclusion that the models might be overestimating the effect of greenhouse gases. On the contrary, they had been arguing all along, by examination of the heavily flawed mainstream science, that the effect of greenhouse gases was badly overestimated. The primary aim of this paper is, I would think, is to retain control of the ‘agenda’ by making out that it was only the halt in warming that alerted sceptics, but that as the mainstream scientists are on the ball wrt the halt, there is no need to listen to sceptics.
It seems that the only way to get the agenda back on track is to remove all the people currently controlling the public face of climate science from their positions of iffluence. There is still a lot of work to do!

January 19, 2014 9:49 pm

1. UNFCC boss: democracy is “very detrimental” for war on AGW
2. UN climate chief: Communism is best to fight global warming
3. UN climate chief calls for tripling of clean energy investment
Wow! Communism is going to pick up the tab for tripling clean energy investments!
On the other hand, I’m probably whistling past the Transforming American graveyard.

January 20, 2014 12:33 am

18 Jan: Bloomberg: Eric Roston: Former Treasury Chief Sees Accounting in the Price of Emission: Dumb Question
Robert Rubin knows a thing or two about economic risk. As Treasury Secretary to President Clinton, Rubin advocated for balanced budgets through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts — Rubinomics for short. While at Treasury he helped formulate the administration’s responses to financial crises in Mexico, Russia and East Asia…
This week Rubin joined the risk committee of a new research effort, called Risky Business, which will estimate potential U.S. economic costs from current and projected impacts of global warming. Founded as a way to frame climate risk for businesses and investors, it was started by billionaire investor and climate campaigner Tom Steyer, former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP…
Rubin, Steyer and I spoke at the Investor Summit on Climate Risk, held Wednesday at the United Nations.
Dumb Question: It seems to me that cutting carbon emissions is like saving for retirement; the earlier you start, the better off you’ll be. If that’s true, does it mean that the Clinton administration had more responsibility than the George W. Bush administration to stop climate change? And if that’s true, what does it imply for the administration of, like, James Madison?
RR: It would be hard for me to comment on the Madison administration, because I don’t know the history that well.
President Clinton and, of course, Vice President Gore were very focused on this. That was a long time ago, and the question was, what can you do? I do know both of them were very focused on it…
The science has moved along. There’s pretty close to universal agreement in the serious science community. In the political community there’s a lot of controversy….
DQ: Wait! Why would there be controversy in the political community if there’s no controversy in the science community? That doesn’t seem totally rational.
RR: It’s a question of connecting [science] with what people are experiencing now. That’s what Risky Business is about — providing a framework for people to think about ramifications of this over time, and making all of it real in the political system and in the financial system. That’s an immense, immense challenge.
DQ: How do you do that?
RR: The key to this is really the political system. If you had accounting rules that result in the externalities [ie the costs of greenhouse gas emissions] being captured in financial statements, then obviously people would react…
Tom Steyer: You have to figure out how to take this huge messy story and put it into lines that people can [both] understand, measure and be evaluated. And then they’ll respond like SOB’s…
TS: But the status quo has huge power, too; if you’re successful you don’t want to change.
RR: Oh, yeah! But you can be forced to change.
TS: You have to be!…

M Courtney
January 20, 2014 1:00 am

From Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2014/01/08/the-trouble-with-scientific-research-today-a-lot-thats-published-is-junk/

A number of empirical studies show that 80-90% of the claims coming from supposedly scientific studies in major journals fail to replicate. This is scandalous, and the problem is only likely to become worse with the proliferation of “predatory publishers” of many open-access journals. According to an expose of these practices by Gina Kolata in the New York Times, the journals published by some of the worst offenders are nothing more than cash-generating machines that eagerly, uncritically accept essentially any submitted paper.

This seems relevant to the benefits of Peer Review that re discussed on a different thread.
Four out of five studies are detecting false correlations. Then perhaps we need fewer but larger studies by fewer but more patient scientists in fewer but more useful journals?

January 20, 2014 1:11 am

Katie, you need to do some research on some things.
The 97% Cook et al is highly flawed and the previous 97% by a college grad (Doran) at Illinois is equally flawed–
Examples Richard Tol expounded on the Cook study. stated that 4 out of 5 of his papers were labeled wrong (as of others) and explained how the methodology was severely lacking. Remember that Cook is a graduate level person (no or very little background in statistics who along with Dana N. writes for the Guardian; also his plans for the results of his study were made public before he did the study).
In Doran over 10,000 emails were sent out to various scientists, About a third replied. Of those, the number she chose for a conclusion on the two questions involved were 77 for the first question and 75 for the second. Hardly a verifiable study.
I once believed in the AGW Meme, until I was challenged (by my daughter-who was a science student of mine) to prove it. Over the following five years I have gathered, I believe over 1,000 articles and pieces of information and studied heavily the science of how the models are formed and realized that there is a tremendous amount of assumption, and guess work.
Each model is its own hypothesis, and none of them predicted the so called pause, also various predictions such as a warm spot over the equator (at about one half sea level pressure) and a cool spot in the atmosphere above that were not found. The warm spot was predicted based upon the hypothesis of H20 feedback, which really is at the heart of the science.
There are other observations which are in contradiction of models such as record sea ice in the Antarctic and it should be noted that total ice in the earth is above average.
Also, consider your statement on total heat imbalance. It is well known that CO2 in the atmosphere is steadily increasing, so it should follow that there should be heat stored somewhere.
The Ocean is of course a huge heat sink and holder of heat. But sea surface temps have not increased for the last decade and the Argo float system, about 3,000 around the earth also show that heat has not been stored down to about a half mile.
Kevin Trenberth has come up with a reanalysis (of model output) which suggests that heat could be stored at depths below a half mile. No data, just another hypothesis which is contrary to the laws of physics as we understand it (for a decade?!)
My background is in physics, chem and math and I have been in contact with hundreds of scientists who are part of the climate studies.
I would say that over 90% do not have a clue about atmospheric physics or the science of warming. Of the rest, I sometimes find myself to be a babe in the woods: however, there is significant disagreement.
The bottom line is that there is a great amount of uncertainty,, there may be some warming but not so much so as to try to capture one of the fundamental elixirs of life.

January 20, 2014 2:00 am

Katie: there is no basis for your repeated “97% of climate scientists” assertion. See this (especially section 3):

January 20, 2014 2:29 am

Enjoyed reading your comment. I find the scramble to find the ‘missing heat’ comical.

January 20, 2014 2:34 am

Anthony – that is one hell of a list of stories. I also do a weekly roundup on Energy Matters (called Blowout) with the perspective from this side of the pond – where we do not have energy abundance. 32 stories in all – one from the Scotsman (a Scottish Broadsheet) may particularly entertain your readers:
Blowout week 3
The Arab Spring – Impact on Oil Production
The Scotsman:

CLIMATE change is real and it is happening very fast. The climate of opinion, that is, regarding the rapidly imploding fantasies of the global warming alarmists.
After a decade in which sane commentators have been angered and frustrated by the purblind adherence to the warmist superstition by followers of the Al Gore cult – prominent among them our own esteemed First Minister and President for Life Designate – the whole climate change scam has finally degenerated into a joke, provoking widespread derision.

January 20, 2014 2:51 am

Katie says “What is says (if you read it in context) is that skeptics have made an incorrect conclusion based on insufficient data.”
Thanks Katie that tickled me – not one to usually get Bibled up but I think Matthew 7:5 is appropriate as is the comments betwixt kettle and pot. Unfortunately the entire area of Earth climate science has insufficient data and the CAGW hypothesis jumped in far too early as the later data has subsequently shown.

Pat Smith
January 20, 2014 3:43 am

AR-5 page 12:
The transient climate response quantifies the response of the climate system to an increasing
radiative forcing on a decadal to century timescale. It is defined as the change in global mean
surface temperature at the time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration has doubled in a
scenario of concentration increasing at 1% per year. The transient climate response is likely in
the range of 1.0°C to 2.5°C (high confidence) and extremely unlikely greater than 3°C. {Box
I understand that anything up to 2C is mildly beneficial in net terms to the globe, so the IPCC seems to be saying that there is a two thirds chance that by 2080 the world will benefit from CO2 increases and a one third chance it will be detrimental. This sounds fairly agnostic to me, if not exactly skeptical.

Bill Illis
January 20, 2014 4:15 am

Katie says:
January 19, 2014 at 7:06 pm
Skeptics should be looking at totality of the heat imbalance of the planet on not concentrate on surface temperatures as a proxy for the heat imbalance.
The heat imbalance is based on temperature measurements you know. Even the deep ocean heat accumulation (as opposed to the surface) is based on the “temperatures” measured by the Argo floats. There are formulae to convert temperature into joules and visa versa.
And this heat imbalance is much smaller than you think it is. Nobody has told you it is only about one-third of that predicted and, at the rate it is accumulating, we get hardly any warming at all.

January 20, 2014 5:29 am

So, like, while everyone else has been blogging and chit-chatting and attending carbon-piggie, party-time, carbon-reduction eco-confabs (that could easily be video-conferenced with vast savings in CO2 “pollution”), and everything, I’ve been actually working on a practical solution to the matter and have perfected a technological breakthrough that powers cars without need for fossil-fuels and is, at the same time, faster, cheaper, and smarter than than the fossil-fuel competitors! I’ve christened my design “The Nature’s Way Dork-Mobile”.
My innovation “cuts” through the “cheesy” previous, failed attempts to achieve a practical, fossil-fuel-free, auto design by the simple expedient of including one of those ubiquitous vegan-types, that the hive turns out at the cyclic rate, as an occupant of each conveyance. My design then exploits the on-board vegetarian’s power-supply by providing a flip up nozzle in each of the car-seats that can be inserted into the carniphobe’s fundament. That, in turn, allows the vehicle’s engine to tap into a source of high-energy, “natural gas” that is, for all practical purposes, unlimited. Voila!
So what’s not to like? Engergy independence, a “renewable” source of energy, and a chance to finally burn off some of that noxious methane-flatulence that lefty herbivores are forever ripping off like cattle in a feed-lot! Can it get any better than that?

January 20, 2014 6:57 am

Well what else can you expect when Jeff Masters says 2010 and 2012 were the top ten warmest in Earth’s history?
“Since 2010, 45 nations or territories have set or tied all-time heat records, but only one nation has set an all-time cold temperature record. Since each of those years was a top-ten warmest year in Earth’s history, and 2010 was the warmest year on record, this sort of disparity in national heat and cold records is to be expected.”

January 20, 2014 6:57 am

Katie says:
January 19, 2014 at 7:06 pm
Skeptics should be looking at totality of the heat imbalance of the planet on not concentrate on surface temperatures as a proxy for the heat imbalance.

Here’s what Mosher posted over at Climate etc. a couple of days ago re OHC:

Steven Mosher | January 17, 2014 at 1:39 am |
Joshua. I dont blame judith for not raising ohc. You see there is a history. Before the pause anybody who talked about ohc like pielke was rated a skeptic or denier. There was one consensus metric. Air temp. If you tried to mention that ohc was the best metric they would shout denier. The table was set. The field was lined. You had to talk about air temps. So I forgive judith shes a little slow to follow the flipping of the script. But rest assured when the warming returns as it will they will forget ohc even though it is the better metric. They will forget it because it is not marketable. But now its all they have. Had they taken a balanced lukewarmer stance they wouldnt have to pretend that they never claimed air temps were important.

January 20, 2014 9:04 am

Only in climate science can skeptics not be scientists. For all other fields of science skeptics are allowed to be scientists. If you say “I am skeptical of…” then automatically you are no longer a climate scientist. You are an heretic.

January 20, 2014 12:29 pm

Where has all the rigor gone, long time passing?
Where has all the rigor gone, long time ago?
Where has all the rigor gone?
Shunned by warmists, every one.
Oh, when will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

January 20, 2014 6:44 pm

Made some comments about the polar vortex on Saturn which is buried in a dead thread about the polar vortex a few day ago. For some reason it is in the shape of a hexagon…:
Photo here:

Colorado Wellington
January 20, 2014 9:42 pm

Katie says:
January 19, 2014 at 9:08 pm
‘sceptics are not scientists’. I think that is a correct statement (in general) 97 percent of climate scientists are not skeptics (in relation to their chosen field of study – namely climate change)

Do you know how you know these things, Katie?

January 21, 2014 1:00 am

Wonderful summary.
I’m particularly liking the evolving “scientific spat” Mickey Man has instigated with JC.
Its a real watch this space story.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights