From the newspaper SouthCoastToday.com
Our View: There is no debate on climate change
The “debate” over the reality and cause of climate change stopped being scientific long ago. Today, the “debate” is nothing more than a distraction that serves a political purpose for those who would stand to lose the most by policies that would curtail the release of carbon from its restful, stable location below the surface of the earth, in the form of fossil fuels, into our environment.
One hundred percent of the current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists participating in an editorial board meeting at The Standard-Times on Tuesday agree both that climate change is occurring and that human activity — particularly the combustion of fossil fuels — has a significant impact on it.
The point was made in the meeting that it is not typical that scientists would agree so broadly. There’s a reason for that: Theories aren’t agreed upon in the scientific community, but facts are.
Theories are debated. Facts are facts.
The UMass scientists were invited to discuss three undeniable, provable effects that burning fossil fuels has on our oceans: acidification, warming, and sea level rise.
Read the rest here: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140205/OPINION/402050305
===============================================================
When the public’s right to know is threatened, and when the rights of free speech and free press are at risk, all of the other liberties we hold dear are endangered. -Christopher Dodd
Source h/t to WUWT reader “Vico”
I’ll bet I could get a creation vs. evolution letter published there, though.
The Los Angeles Times established a ban on printing any climate change skeptic letters long ago. The Times has been conducting a political climate fear propaganda campaign for decades. The material contained in the ridiculous justification for the action reported here is absurd. The real issues of the extent of man made influences versus natural climate change action which is clearly under intense scientific debate as demonstrated by the IPCC AR5 retreat from the results projected by climate models that have all but been abandoned is just ignored here. The exaggeration of man made influences is present in so many areas alleged as being problems and the publication of thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers which challenge the validity of virtually every area of climate scientist alarmism is overwhelming in the justifying the push back. This action demonstrates a clear case of confirmation bias by those making a living at the government funding feed bag.
Reuters’ latest on EU’s attempts to further FIX THE CO2 MARKET PRICE:
EU carbon surges to 13-mth high after parliament vote
LONDON, Feb 6 (Reuters) – European carbon prices surged more than 9 percent to a 13-month high on Thursday after the European Parliament approved a proposal to fast-track efforts to prop up prices, but traders said the market may be over-heated and due for a correction.
https://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.3975390
Bloomberg in a frenzy:
7 Feb: Bloomberg: Matthew Carr: Ex-Barclays Carbon Chief Trades From Home as Prices Surge
Louis Redshaw, the former head of carbon trading at Barclays Plc (BARC), returned to the market amid a jump in permit prices since he left the bank in April.
Redshaw, 41, who resigned from Barclays in London after more than eight years at the company, is buying and selling European Union permits for his own account from his home in the southeast of the capital, he said by phone, declining to provide further details. Allowances climbed 33 percent this year, the best performance of 80 commodities tracked by Bloomberg. They rose to their highest level in more than a year today, trading at 6.74 euros ($9.17) a metric ton on the ICE Futures Europe exchange in London…
EU lawmakers are completing details of a plan to curb an unprecedented oversupply and boost prices, which fell to a record in April. Allowances may rise to as high as 15 euros by 2015, according to Patrick Hummel, an analyst at UBS AG.
“There’s no reason why the market shouldn’t double within the next 18 months,” said Redshaw, who also worked as a trader at Enron Corp. and Electricite de France SA. (EDF) “At 6 euros, it’s still cheap.” …
“If the EU manages to re-establish its emissions trading system as the central pillar of climate policy, that will create growing interest in carbon markets across the world,” Schoenberg, who previously worked at the Bonn-based United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change secretariat, said Feb. 4 by phone. Carbon prices may average about 40 euros a ton from 2019 to 2030, according to Climate Change Capital…
“The commission’s support from the parliament cemented that fact and the future of the market,” Redshaw said. “I’ve been watching developments and now is the right time to get back involved.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-06/ex-barclays-carbon-chief-redshaw-trades-from-home-as-prices-jump.html
Kip Hansen says:
‘J Murphy says:
February 6, 2014 at 4:17 pm
From a storm-tossed UK (as well as a very wet northern Europe, baking Australia and unnaturally cold USA – among other countries and regions becoming increasingly affected by climate change), I would like to thank you all for your pedantic obsessions over who said what and when (and how they didn’t say it correctly or not totally to your liking), and your continued obstructionism and highlighting of any cold records (whole ignoring all the warm ones). Your services to carbon and against humanity will be suitably rewarded, I hope.’
Lol! Great comedy, son. You should do it as a day job.
J Murphy says:
February 6, 2014 at 4:17 pm
“Your services to carbon and against humanity will be suitably rewarded, I hope.”
Hey, J, I didn’t do anything. I just watched the pityful spectacle for the last 4 years because it was amusing watching the warmist movement self-destruct. BTW, it hasn’t been warming for the last 17 years. Your island gets more windy? Can’t be the temperature; it’s not changing. Blame something else. A non changing temperature can’t cause more wind if you can follow me.
Slow day on the south coast of Mass, my guess. An editorial board meeting with scientists. Oh my and gosh, who called who to set up this meeting? The propagandists – er sorry – the scientists, or the newspaper? My guess (again) the propagandists called to offer their opinion tete-a-tete and hey, it was no match for this crew. The ref called it in the first round.
Further, I wonder if the same comatose editors would entertain an editorial proposition from other scientists, you know, those who aren’t into the propaganda business.
Nice says:
February 6, 2014 at 2:51 pm
“Even WUWT has a policy to exclude certain topics and groups.So how is that different from Southcoasttoday imposing some limits? Presumably there is somebody there saying WUWT has “a circulation of a few thousand illiterates”.
Nice,
Prof Richard Lindzen, for example, is among those the NY Times would censor.
The Times won’t censor creationists, as pointed out above. But they will censor one of the world’s premier climatologists, who heads M.I.T.’s atmospheric sciences department.
[How] do you defend that?
J Murphy says:
February 6, 2014 at 4:17 pm
From a storm-tossed UK (as well as a very wet northern Europe, baking Australia and unnaturally cold USA – among other countries and regions becoming increasingly affected by climate change), I would like to thank you all for your pedantic obsessions over who said what and when (and how they didn’t say it correctly or not totally to your liking), and your continued obstructionism and highlighting of any cold records (whole ignoring all the warm ones). Your services to carbon and against humanity will be suitably rewarded, I hope.
*****************************
want a blankie for those tears?
I was suprised by the comments to the decsion in the paper. there was only one supporter the rest were very critical of the southcoast today.
more detail from the Reuters’ carbon (dioxide) price piece:
7 Feb: Business Spectator: Reuters: EU carbon surges to another high after vote
The futures then drifted back down to 6.57 euros by 1535 GMT, up 41 cents or 6.7 per cent on the day…
While the motion must be formally signed off by EU ministers at a Feb. 24 meeting, Thursday’s vote effectively removed the final hurdle for the 28-nation bloc’s executive to begin market intervention and withdraw 400 million allowances from government-backed auctions in 2014…
However, Ferdinand added that prices could fall in the next few sessions as speculators take profits, a view echoed by one emissions trader.
“Long-term we’re going higher, but it’s tricky to say where we go in the short-term. It will be driven by speculator appetite to hold long positions … (so) we’re probably due a bit of a breather,” the trader said.
“We’ve also got at least another month of regular auctions, so that could weigh.”
EU governments are scheduled to sell a total 106.2 million allowances between Friday and mid-March, fresh supply that must be absorbed by the market…
A group of 25 member states on Thursday sold 4 million spot permits for 6.01 euros each, in an auction that attracted bids worth a total 16.8 million units…
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2014/2/7/carbon-markets/eu-carbon-surges-another-high-after-vote
Gail Combs says:
February 6, 2014 at 1:05 pm
===========================================================================
Gail, thanks for doing some digging. We can always count on you to add content to the discussion. I think you got a little off tract with Fortress Investments, however. I don’t think they are the current owners. I found this at http://www.prnewswire.com
“WILMINGTON, Del., Nov. 26, 2013 /PRNewswire/ — GateHouse Media, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, “GateHouse”), comprising one of the largest publishers of locally based print and online media in the United States, have emerged from prepackaged chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings…..
Upon its emergence from chapter 11, GateHouse is now owned by New Media Investment Group Inc. (“New Media”), and is under common ownership with Local Media Group, Inc. (“Local Media Group”), a company with a strong community media presence and performance that operates eight daily community newspapers and thirteen weeklies.”
I did go the the GateHouse Media website and found this:
“GateHouse Media’s business model is to be the preeminent provider of local content and advertising in the small and midsize markets we serve. Our portfolio of products, which includes 404 community publications and more than 350 related websites and six yellow page directories, serves over 128,000 business advertising accounts and reaches approximately 10 million people on a weekly basis. As of June 30, 2012, our core products included:
78 daily newspapers with total paid circulation of approximately 547,000;”
With 78 dailies with a circulation of 547,000, the dailies have an average circulation of about 7013 each.
When I went to the list of publications, there was Hathaway Publications listed as a daily paper under “Massachusetts.” It also listed LMG (probably Local Media Group) as “operator.” When I clicked on Hathaway Publications, it brought up the South Coast Today website.
Was their decision not to publish skeptic views of CAGW an edict from New Media Investments Group, or the local editors decision? I don’t know, but with that kind of circulation, I’ll bet the editorial board was made up of the editor and his dog. However, it is a shame those 7000 Massachusetts readers will not get the skeptics view from South Coast Today. Hopefully they all have computers and can access WUWT.
keep digging Gail – the carbon cowboys are sweating on this being their “moment” to pounce:
more frenzy from Bloomberg’s CAGW “specialists”:
6 Feb: Bloomberg/Businessweek: Ewa Krukowska/Jonathan Stearns: Fast-Track EU Carbon Fix Approval by Bloc’s Paarliament (2)
“It is the best-case scenario eventually materializing,” said Matteo Mazzoni, an analyst at Bologna, Italy-based Nomisma Energia srl, an adviser to energy companies, governments and banks. “It is good news for the market.” …
Emergency Measure
“We estimate that backloading could start on March 17,” Itamar Orlandi, an analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in London, said in an e-mail…
The emergency measure needs to be cleared by both the Parliament and the EU Council of national governments before it enters into force…
Carbon prices will jump to 7.75 euros a metric ton by the end of the year amid the planned supply curbs, according to the median of nine analyst and trader estimates compiled by Bloomberg News last month…
Complicated Process
New Energy Finance’s prediction that backloading could begin on March 17 assumes that the regulation is published in the week starting Feb. 24 and that the announcement on new auction calendars is made on March 3…
Today’s vote “shows that the will is there but the process was so complicated and flawed and there was so much delay,” Nick Eagle, a trader at Clean Energy Group Ltd. in London, said today in an e-mailed response to questions. “You can’t avoid the fact this was meant to be the easy bit.” …
A more permanent tightening of the market “will be much harder to agree” and realization that this political fight is still to come “could lead to a sell-off after the excitement has died down,” he said.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-02-06/fast-track-eu-carbon-fix-gets-approval-from-european-parliament
6 Feb: Platts/McGraw Hill Financial: EU parliament backs fast CO2 market fix; ministers set to OK plan Feb 24
(WISHFUL THINKING?) Meanwhile, EU ministers are tentatively scheduled to give the EU Council’s formal approval without further discussion on February 24, an EU diplomatic source told Platts Thursday…
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/brussels/eu-parliament-backs-fast-co2-market-fix-ministers-26690934
and politics will play a part in prepping the CO2 market!
6 Feb: Chicago Tribune: Mark Drajem, Bloomberg News: Southern balks at EPA rules that cite its carbon-capture plant
Southern Co., which is building the nation’s only commercial power plant that will capture its own carbon emissions, criticized a proposal from the federal government to require all new coal plants to use the technology.
At a public hearing Thursday at Environmental Protection Agency headquarters in Washington, industry representatives said the agency went too far in its proposed limits on carbon-dioxide emissions from new power plants. The technology isn’t commercially available and doesn’t have the rules in place to govern its use, they said.
Southern said the plant it’s building in Kemper, Miss., which the EPA cited in its proposal, shouldn’t be viewed as a model. It “should not be used in developing a national standard for greenhouse gases,” Danny Herrin, the Atlanta-based company’s environmental director, testified…
(MOTHERS & GRANDMOTHERS???) Environmental advocates, religious leaders, medical professionals and mothers and grandmothers also testified Thursday, mostly in support of the plan or asking the agency to go further…
The standard “is supposed to be technology forcing,” said Felice Stadler, senior director for climate at the National Wildlife Federation. “You have to put a marker out there.”…
“It’s about fuel diversity,” said Eric Holdsworth, director of climate programs at Edison Electric Institute, a Washington-based trade group representing utilities such as Southern and American Electric Power Co…
Industry groups also said that standard is too tight, because plants can’t meet it in real-world conditions.
The rules were embraced by environmental groups and other lawmakers who have been seeking new methods to curb carbon emissions, even though have lacked consensus in Congress to achieve their goals.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-news-bc-epa-southern06-20140206,0,6624868.story
Oh, so the debate on climate change is over? You know what else is over? The debate over what we’re going to DO about it.
J Murphy says:
February 6, 2014 at 4:17 pm
“….Your services to carbon and against humanity will be suitably rewarded, I hope.”
==============
Stick around, we’re all just trying to figure things out.
7 Feb: NYT: Stanley Reed: European Lawmakers Try to Spur Market for Carbon-Emission Credits
After the vote Thursday, carbon permit prices rose about 7 percent, to about 6.60 euros, or $9. But that price is still well under the figure of €25 or more that analysts say is needed to influence business decisions like whether to burn coal, which is a heavy carbon emitter, or natural gas.
European officials “wanted to give a signal that the E.T.S. is not dead, and they managed to get it through,” said Roland Vetter, an analyst at CF Partners, a London-based trading house…
But it will be many months before those policies are ironed out, and with a new European Parliament to be elected in May, there is no guarantee that efforts already underway will become law…
Beginning as early as March, European officials will reduce the number of credits released over the next three years by about 900 million tons or about half of the estimated two billion ton surplus…
But after much early fanfare, the European system lost momentum. The long economic slowdown, since the financial crisis of 2008 reduced industrial activity and energy use in Europe, creating a surplus of permits in the system that has depressed the price of allowances. Heavy subsidies for renewable energy by countries like Germany have also undermined the trading system, some analysts say…
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/business/international/european-lawmakers-try-to-spur-market-for-carbon-emission-credits.html?hpw&rref=business&_r=0
“Theories are debated. Facts are facts.”
Anyone who thinks that “facts are facts” needs to remember that merely believing that something is a fact does not make it a fact. It was once a “fact” that the Sun circled the Earth, once a “fact” that heavy objects fell faster than lighter objects, once a “fact” that atoms could not be split. Even more outrageous, it was recently a “fact” that doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations would raise temperatures by several degrees. How outdated…
Gail Combs says:
February 6, 2014 at 1:13 pm
===========================================================================
Gail, perhaps I spoke to soon. Trying to find something about New Media Investments I was lead back to Newcastle Investment Group and this dated Nov. 6, 2013, at http://www.highyieldbond.com/gatehouse-media-prepackaged-reorganization-plan-approved/
“GateHouse Media Inc. won bankruptcy court approval of its prepackaged reorganization plan and disclosure statement today, less than six weeks after filing for bankruptcy in Wilmington, Del.
The company, one of the largest publishers of locally based print and online media in the U.S., announced on Sept. 11 that it had entered into a plan support agreement with Newcastle Investment Group, an affiliate of Fortress Investment Group, and certain lenders under its 2007 secured credit facility. GateHouse filed for Chapter 11 protection on Sept. 27 with the support of all but one of its 80 lenders
Under the plan approved today, about $1.117 billion in secured holder claims will be offered a cash-out option of 40 cents on the dollar plus accrued interest at the non-default rate, or a pro rata share of stock in the reorganized company, which will be called New Media, and the proceeds of a new $150 million debt facility.”
So who really owns this little local daily newspaper with a circulation of several thousand? I’m not sure, but it sounds like it ultimately could be Fortress Investment Group. However, I still think the decision not to publish skeptic views of CAGW was made by the local editor.
“””””…..jrlagoni says:
February 6, 2014 at 3:07 pm
Now I know the difference between the scientific method and “science” … people and politics and money! Hey, I think they (MSM) are going to obfuscate or minimize that the Great Lakes are going to have a record freeze in the next couple of weeks. Maybe you or someone with good info access can post on this as it is already quite dramatic – and at least thru the 3rd week of Feb. the ice will continue to grow to record amounts. Very possible Lake Michigan will freeze over, …..”””””
Well Lake Superior has already frozen over; so who gives a rats if Michigan does too.
this was hidden way down (4 pages) in the google AlGore-ithms results:
6 Feb: Bloomberg: Rachel Morison: Changes to U.K. Carbon Floor Price Will Harm Liquidity, EDF Says
Freezing or changing plans for the U.K. carbon floor price would “severely damage” power market liquidity, according to Electricite de France SA.
***The floor price, set in the national budget each April, will rise to 18.08 pounds ($29.42) a metric ton of emissions in the year through March 2016, up from 4.94 pounds, the Treasury said last March. The government plans to freeze the carbon price from 2016, the Daily Mail newspaper reported Jan. 25…
Emitters such as factories and power stations must pay the floor price in addition to buying European emissions allowances, which have fallen 80 percent from a record 31 euros a ton in April 2006.
“It is no secret that the trajectory for floor prices is way out of line with carbon prices,” Michael Fallon, minister of state for energy, said at a conference in London. “This is significant for industry and we are bound to show an interest in this.” …
The carbon floor price will add 10 percent to electricity prices by 2015, according to Gareth Stace, head of climate and environment policy at manufacturers organization EEF.
“Some of our members would be happy to see it abolished altogether,” Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users Group said yesterday by phone from London. “We are arguing for the trajectory for the carbon floor price to come down towards the end of this decade and beyond.” …
The lack of clarity on the carbon floor price is unsatisfactory, according to Tim Yeo, chairman of the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, said in London.
“I can sympathize that it provides a healthy revenue stream and the chancellor doesn’t want to lose it,” he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-05/changes-to-u-k-carbon-floor-price-will-harm-liquidity-edf-says.html
The term “climate change” is defined by the UNFCCC as being man made driven changes to the earth’s climate but this is not the definition of “climate change” used by by either the EPA or even generally by the IPCC where changes include both man made and natural variability drivers.
george e. smith says:
February 6, 2014 at 7:42 pm
“Well Lake Superior has already frozen over; so who gives a rats if Michigan does too.”
==============
Well….. per:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-11-13/news/0211130174_1_lake-michigan-lake-erie-great-lakes
“According to the Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab at Ann Arbor, Mich., Lake Michigan has never completely frozen over, a result of the vast reservoir of heat contained in the lake, along with the constant wind and wave action. In some of our harshest winters, (1903-04, 1976-77 and most recently 1978-79) Lake Michigan was more than 90 percent ice-covered.
In an average winter, ice covers a little less than half the lake. Because the lake extends more than 300 miles from north to south, most of the open water is in the south part where the cold is less severe.”
——
So, apparently, I give “a rats”.
Or I wouldn’t have gone to all this trouble to post this info.
(the lake still has a long way to go to be frozen over).
The forecast though looks to produce much ice.