Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #155

The Week That Was: 2014-11-08 (November 8, 2014) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: it is “certain that the number of those who reason well in difficult matters is much smaller than the number of those who reason badly…. reasoning is like running and not like carrying, and one Arab steed will outrun a hundred jackasses.” Galileo [H/t Don Easterbrook]

Number of the Week: 0.0000006%

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

IPCC Synthesis Report: The November 1 TWTW speculated on the contents of the upcoming report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesizing three separate assessment reports (ARs) into a coherent whole. The three reports are Climate Change: The Physical Science (2013); Impacts, Adaption, and Vulnerability (2014); and Mitigation of Climate Change (2014). TWTWT speculated that the synthesis report will not discuss the failure of the IPCC and the climate establishment to advance understanding of the sensitivity of the earth to a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is called “Climate Sensitivity”; the synthesis report would contain no systematic discussion of the failure of climate models to predict the absence of 21st century warming, or discussion of the current excuses why.

True to form, the IPCC Synthesis did not discuss IPCC deficiencies, but focused on dire predictions. The new operative term was irreversible. Unless drastic action is taken to stop all human CO2 emissions, dire consequences would result that is irreversible. A major issue with such predictions is that the Nongovernmental, International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) concluded that many natural, cyclical processes have not been incorporated in IPCC’s claims of human-caused climate change. If so, and if processes are cyclical, the effects are naturally reversible.

By ignoring significant failures in its science, the IPCC continues to raise the question is climate science, as interpreted by the IPCC, a natural (physical) science or is it a human construct? See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy, Defending the Orthodoxy, and Questioning the Orthodoxy.


US Elections: On November 4, the American electorate demonstrated it is not impressed by dire predictions of the IPCC. The Republicans, many of whom expressed doubt about the claims of the IPCC, took control of the US Senate, expanded control of the US House of Representatives, and expanded control of a number of state legislative bodies. There are a number of explanations for the one-sided vote. One explanation that has not been extensively discussed is that it was a victory of proponents of traditional energy over proponents of new, renewable energy. New, renewable energy is being demonstrated as expensive, unreliable, and impractical for a modern society. It is not needed, when reliable and cheaper sources are available.

In the aftermath, the general press ignored a critical issue regarding many critics of the IPCC and its followers. It is not that critics claim climate change is not happening, many disagree with the claim that humans are the primary cause. It appears that Senator James Inhofe will become chairman of the influential Senate Environment and Publics Works Committee. This will be a significant shift over the prior leadership, which severely criticized global warming skeptics for personal beliefs that had nothing to do with the scientific issues. An article accusing Senator Inhofe as being a climate denier did little to smooth the transition. The term, climate denier, is meaningless. Senator Inhofe recognizes that climate change is normal and natural and he certainly does not deny that climate change exists.

For a variety of assessments on the election see Articles # 1 and #2 and links under US Election and The Political Games Continue.


Restoring Rigor in Government-Sponsored Research: With the election, many commentators are suggesting what the changed legislative leadership should do. Joining others, TWTW offers these suggestions.

Points of view on Global Warming/Climate Change:

1) Advocates: Burning of fossil fuels is creating atmospheric carbon dioxide, causing global warming, which has been deemed to be unprecedented and dangerous.

2) Skeptics: Recent warming is not unprecedented or dangerous – regardless of cause. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is beneficial to the environment and to humanity.

Advocates assert that continued warming is dangerous. They rely on complex computer models that indicate significant warming in the latter part of the 21st century from the use of fossil fuels.

Skeptics assert that the influence of carbon dioxide on the earth’s temperatures and on climate is greatly overstated and the position of the advocates is unsupported by physical evidence.

Advocates include many government entities, as well as the IPCC and some scientific organizations.

Skeptics include a number of less formal groups. Among them are the Right Climate Stuff Team, retired veterans of the Apollo missions, and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), comprised largely of retired independent professionals with extensive backgrounds in fields related to climate change.

Funding: Advocates: Western governments fund the bulk of climate change research. For example, according to a report from the White House, in FY 2013 total US government expenditures on global warming/climate change amounted to about $22.6 Billion. About $2.5 Billion went to the US Global Change Research Program, which follows the lead of the IPCC and fails stand up to independent review. The balance of the funding goes to programs designed to reduce global warming/climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Skeptics: There is no central funding of the skeptics. The Right Stuff Climate Team is self-funded. The publications of NIPCC are funded by private foundations.

Results – Advocates: As the public is becoming aware, the models used by the advocates greatly overestimate 21st century warming. During this century there is little or no warming even though CO2 concentrations increased about 9% from 1997 to 2013. The position of the advocates is becoming increasingly untenable. Since the models fail to predict early 21st century temperatures, there is no logical reason to assume they are capable of predicting later 21st century temperatures or any other climate conditions.

The IPCC and the climate establishment have failed to advance understanding of the sensitivity of the earth to a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is called Climate Sensitivity. The 2013 estimate was 1.5 – 4.5ºC. This is the same estimate as given in a 1979 report to the US National Academy of Science by a special group under MIT meteorologist Jule Charney. The inability to narrow this estimate demonstrates a lack of progress in the climate science embodied by the IPCC and its adherents – such as the US National Climate Assessment, produced by the US Global Change Research Program.

The climate establishment has produced little or no systematic discussion of the failure of the climate models to predict the lack of 21st century warming. There is little or no systematic discussion of the 40 some latter-day explanations of the lack of warming. Some of these explanations are inconsistent with other explanations, and many embody natural causes, which according to the IPCC Summary for Policymakers, should have been considered in the original reports.

There is little or no systematic discussion of the possibility that the low-end of the estimated range of climate sensitivity is far too high. More importantly, there is little or no systematic discussion of the possibility that the high-end of the estimated range of climate sensitivity is far, far too high. Without the high-end estimates, there is no logical justification for extensive studies on impacts, adaption, vulnerability; and mitigation of climate change. Such studies include emotional issues such as species extinction and dramatic sea level rise, upon which a large part of the climate establishment justifies its existence.

Results – Skeptics: The positions of the skeptics are being borne-out. The climate models are unsuitable for prediction because they have never undergone the rigorous scientific process of verification and validation – a glaring failure. As such, they are little more than sophisticated speculation.

General Recommendations: (From NIPCC and The Right Climate Stuff Team):

1. Team B. The 35 years of failure to advance knowledge in climate sensitivity demonstrates the pressing need to establish a Team B for climate change. The Team B concept embodies a competent, well-financed team that is capable of addressing the issues of a complex or controversial nature. Such teams are frequently used in industry, government, and law. The Right Climate Stuff Team and, more comprehensively, NIPCC provide a Team B. But, because they are not financed by government, their reports are largely ignored by government entities.

2. Models must be verified and validated before they are used to establish policy

3. The enormous benefits of enhanced atmospheric carbon dioxide to humanity and the environment must be considered in any government policy.

Specific Recommendations: (From the Right Climate Stuff Team and supported by NIPCC)

1. The science that predicts the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is not settled science. (Jan 2013)

2. Our US government is over-reacting to concerns about AGW. (Jan 2013)

3. It is scientifically embarrassing that the EPA has declared CO2 to be a pollutant that must be regulated, since it is a naturally occurring substance required to sustain human, animal and plant life, and for which there is no substitute. (Jan 2013)

4. We have concluded that the IPCC climate models are seriously flawed because they don’t agree very closely with measured empirical data. After a 35 year simulation the models over-predicted actual measured temperatures by factors of 200% to 750%. One could hardly expect them to predict with better accuracy 300 years into the future required for use in regulatory decisions. (Feb 2014)

5. There is no convincing evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) will produce catastrophic climate changes. AGW can only produce modest amounts of global warming that will likely be beneficial when the substantial benefits to crop production from more CO2 in the atmosphere are considered. (Jan 2013) and (Feb 2014).

6. Because there is no immediate threat of global warming requiring swift corrective action, we have time to study global climate changes and improve our prediction accuracy. A wider range of solution options should be studied for global warming or cooling threats from any credible cause. (Jan 2013)

Specific Recommendations – Energy Policy (H/t John Brignell, Number Watch)

1. Energy should be obtained from a variety of sources, lest one should fail.

2. There should be a reliable and continuous source to service the base load.

3. There should be further instantly available sources to accommodate demand surges.

4. Unpredictable and intermittent sources should be avoided.

5. Policy should not be decided by trends, fashions or religious convictions, such as fear of carbon dioxide emissions.


Additions and Corrections: Dennis Ambler wrote that the UK government has a cunning plan to prevent no power cuts in the future: it has enlisted a fleet of back-up Diesel Generators – at great expense to the public. UK blogger, Dr Richard North covered the policy in detail last year when similar claims were being made about the inability of the grid to cope with demand. http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84094


Number of the Week: 0.0000006%. Energy commentator Donn Dears estimates that three new cellulosic ethanol plants costing about $775,000,000 are able to produce around 0.0000006% of the government mandated 16 billion gallons cellulosic ethanol required in 2022. The plants are heavily subsidized. See link under Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Other



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. Little Green Machine

Democrats make a bad investment in the climate-change lobby.

Editorial, WSJ, Nov 6, 2014


2. GOP-Controlled Senate Expected to Oppose Obama Energy Policies

Keystone Pipeline, Carbon Emission Rules, Natural-Gas Exports Expected to Receive Attention

By Amy Harder, WSJ, Nov 5, 2014


3. Saudi Price Cut Upends Oil Market

Move Paves Way for Further Price Declines, Adds Pressure on U.S. Energy Producers

By Nicole Friedman, Benoit Faucon and Summer Said, WSJ, Nov 3, 2014




Commentary: Is the Sun Rising?

Climate Dialogue: influence of the sun on climate

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Oct 27, 2014


Climategate Continued

Gergis and the PAGES2K Regional Average

By Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, Nov 7, 2014


[SEPP Comment: More statistical games.]

Challenging the Orthodoxy

IPCC 2014: “synthesis” counterproductive measurements and facts

By Klaus-Eckart Pulse, EIKE, Nov 5, 2014 [H/t ACSP]


EIKE: IPCC Synthesis Report “In Crass Contradiction To Almost Every Measurement And Trend In Nature”

By P. Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Nov 5, 2014


Last Gasp of a Dinosaur?

By Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger, CATO, Nov 4, 2014


John Coleman fires back on the IPCC Synthesis Report

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Nov 4, 2014


Weather Channel Co-Founder: ‘Hello Everybody! There Is No Global Warming’

By Sandy Fitzgerald, Newsmax, Nov 2, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Who are the Real Deniers?

By Gordon Fulks, ACSP, Nov 7, 2014


Energy use and electricity generation

By Martin Livermore, Scientific Alliance, Nov 7, 2014


IPCC Prediction Of Severe Weather Increase Based On Fundamental Error

By Tim Ball, WUWT, Nov 2, 2014


Dedicated to promoting synthetic climate alarmism

By Peter Foster, Financial Post, Nov 3, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


ICSC: IPCC focus on stopping global warming and extreme weather is unscientific and immoral

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Nov 2, 2014


Common Sense on Climate

By John Hinderaker, Power Line, Nov 6, 2014


‘I am sceptical humans are causing global warming’: Buzz Aldrin says more research – and less politics – is needed

By Jonathan O’Callaghan, Mail, UK, Oct 31, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Defending the Orthodoxy

Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report

Approved Summary for Policymakers

By Core Writing Team Members, Extended Writing Team, and Review Editors, UN IPCC, Nov 1, 2014


10 Terrifying Facts From the UN’s New Climate Report

It’s getting hotter. We’re causing it. And we have to act now.

By John Light, Mother Jones, Nov 3, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Effects of climate change ‘irreversible,’ U.N. panel warns in report

By Joby Warrick and Chris Mooney, Washington Post, Nov 2, 2014


IPCC calls for zero carbon by 2100

By Staff Writers, WNN, Nov 3, 2014


UN Climate Panel: Phase Out Fossil Fuels ‘Almost Entirely’ by 2100

By Patrick Goodenough, CNS News, Nov 2, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Irreversible climate change likely without swift action, says UN report

By Zack Colman, Washington Examiner, Nov 2, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Questioning the Orthodoxy

How urgent is ‘urgent’?

By Judith Curry, Nov 2, 2014


IPCC bias in action

By Marcel Crok, De staat van het klimaat. Nov 4, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Their [Lewis and Curry] preferred likely range is 1.25-2.45°C and the best estimate is 1.64°C. Again, these are not numbers invented by skeptics, those are the numbers of the IPCC itself. It assumes close to 100% of the warming since 1850 is due to humans, an assumption that goes much further than the iconic “it’s now extremely likely that most of the warming since 1950 is due to humans” statement in AR5.

[SEPP Comment: The use of surface data in estimating climate sensitivity is highly questionable. Satellite is far more comprehensive and yields a lower estimate of climate sensitivity.]

Spiegel Slams: “At IPCC Alarmism Comes Before Accuracy”…IPCC “Gross Problems”…”Suppresses Important Findings”

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Nov 4, 2014


The Ritual IPCC Alarm: Just 16 Years To Avoid Climate Calamity

By Michael Hanion, The Sunday Times, Via GWPF, Nov 2, 2014


IPCC says world should have ‘zero emissions’ by 2100

By Rick Moran, American Thinker, Nov 2, 2014


IPCC recycles global doom and wants a small part of everything you own

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Nov 3, 2014


Does Cloud Cover Explain Recent Temperature Trends

By John Hinderaker, Power Line, Nov 2, 2014


Australia PM defends coal after UN warning on climate

By Staff Writers, Sydney (AFP), Nov 04, 2014


Climate change is a problem. But our attempts to fix it could be worse than useless

Panicked, ill-thought-through responses to the threat of climate change could hurt more people than they save

By Bjorn Lomborg, Telegraph, UK, Nov 3, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry

By Staff Writers, ICECAP, Nov 4, 2014


US Election

Climate Change? An Issue for Losers

By Steven Hayward, Power Line, Nov 5, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


The day ‘climate change’ became irrelevant in politics – Powerful Green Lobby Defeated In US Midterm Elections

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Nov 5, 2014


The biggest loser in this election is the climate

By Brad Plumer, VOX, Nov 4, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Big lesson for Australia from US voters. Climate change is over as an election issue.

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Nov 7, 2014


Obama and Dems Rebuked by Electorate on Climate and Energy Policy

By Ronald Bailey, Reason, Nov 5, 2014


Climate change supporters suffer losses

By Laura Barron-Lopez, The Hill, Nov 5, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


German Climate Alarmists Deflated By GOP Election Sweep: “Could Not Have Come At A Worse Time”

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Nov 7, 2014


Climate Change Policies Dead In The Water With New Congress

By: DSWright, FDL, Nov 6, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


A Huge Win for Small Government

By James Allan. Quadrant, Nov 7, 2014


Catastrophism Out in the Cold

By Michael Kile, Quadrant, Nov 8, 2014


Energy re Climate Policy: Time for Change (new Congress needs to fight, not compromise)

By James Rust, Master Resource, Nov 4, 2014


Problems in the Orthodoxy

IPCC lead author Prof Myles Allen: ‘Alarmism is unhelpful…

IPCC: NGO Climate Alarmism is causing a Credibility Gap

By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Nov 4, 2014


Link to article: Green groups hindering global warming fight with ‘alarmist’ warnings: UN scientists

By Emily Gosden, Telegraph, Nov 3, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Would the heavy government funding exist if it were not for alarmism?]

Climate talks: India mulls shift in stand

By Vishwa Mohan, Economic Times, India, Nov 5, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Why There’s No Quick Fix for Climate Change

By Taylor Hill, Yahoo, Nov 7, 2014 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


Seeking a Common Ground

The Adaptive Response of Salmon to Global Warming

…the extinction horrors of climate change may be a “fish story”

By Patrick J. Michaels and Craig D. Idso, CATO, Nov 5, 2014


Cognitive bias – how petroleum scientists deal with it

By Peter Rose, Climate Etc. Nov 3, 2014


Climate dynamics of clouds

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Nov 6, 2014


Models v. Observations

Confronting models with observations

By Aaron Dubrow, NSF, Nov 7, 2014


Model Issues

New paper finds a huge false physical assumption of IPCC climate models

By Staff Writer, The Hockey Schtick, Nov 3, 2014


Link to paper: Far-infrared surface emissivity and climate

By Feldman, et al. PNAS, Nov 3, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Findings are consistent with the 2008 NIPCC Report that infrared radiation penetrates only the top few microns of water.]

They didn’t audit the model

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Nov 5, 2014


Measurement Issues

The DCNF’s Definitive Guide To Understanding The Pause In Global Warming

By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, Oct 31, 2014


Excuses Excuses! Neville Nicholls and the Stevenson screens that didn’t exist or did and were “cracked”?

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Nov 6, 2014


HADCRUT4 Adjustments – Discovering Missing Data or Reinterpreting Existing Data? (Now Includes September Data)

By Werner Brozek and Just The Facts, WUWT, Nov 5, 2014


Independent Review Discovers that NCDC Fumbles Data Handling in GHCN Climate Data

By Bob Koss, WUWT, Nov 3, 2014


Polar bear specialist says there are 800 polar bears in W Hudson Bay, gov’t says ~1,000-1,500

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Nov 5, 2014


Changing Weather

NASA Study Finds Winter Blocking A Natural And Commonplace Event

By Paul Homewood, Not A Lot of People Know That, Nov 7, 2014


Link to paper: Stalled Weather Systems More Frequent in Decades of Warmer Atlantic

By Maria-José Viñas, NASA, Nov 3, 2014


Frigid Week Ahead for Most of the U.S.

By Roy Spencer, His Blog, Nov 7, 2014


Surprise! Austrian Winters Have Gotten 0.9°C Colder Since 1984…Confirmed By Independent Meteorologists [Salzburg Mountains]

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Nov 6, 2014


Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice

Claim: Berkeley Lab scientists identify a new driver behind Arctic warming

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Nov 3, 2014


Agriculture Issues & Fear of Famine

2014 Sees Record Harvests Worldwide…Demolishing Gloomy Myth Global Warming Would Lead To Acute Crop Failures

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Nov 3, 2014


“Warmest Year” Brings Record Harvests For UK

By Paul Homewood, WUWT, Nov 7, 2014


Un-Science or Non-Science?

Claim: If no action is taken, extreme heat waves will become the norm by the end of the century

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Nov 5, 2014


[SEPP Comment: The greenhouse effect is most pronounced at night not in the day-time.]

Future air quality could put plants, people at risk

By Staff Writers, University of Sheffield, Nov 6, 2014 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


Lowering Standards

National Academy of Sciences Panel: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Have to Drop to Zero

Bu Ali Meyer, CNS News, Nov 4, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


BBC provides a forum for desperate biologists: “Will polar bears become extinct?”

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Nov 7, 2014


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

ABC, NBC Promote ‘Alarming New Report’ On Climate Change From U.N.

By Jeffrey Meyer, MRC, Nov 2, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Polar bear biologists doing mark-recapture work in Hudson Bay may have misled the world

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Nov 2, 2014


Maslin’s morass

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Nov 6, 2014


Why Environmental Correspondents Trip Over Themselves

By Ben Pile, Climate Resistance, Nov 3, 2014 [H/t Bishop Hill]


Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.

Fact Checking the ABC — the Big-Myth about the “World’s Scientists”

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Nov 4, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Necessary qualifying statements are absent in Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s reports.]

More Misleading Claims From The Met Office

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Nov 7, 2014


The Polluters Must Pay

Fossil fuel companies’ profits are morally illegitimate. The public has the right to take those profits—to clean up their mess.

By Naomi Klein, In These Times, Oct 24, 2014


The Lies Phony Climate Experts Tell

By Alan Caruba, Warning Signs, Nov 2, 2014


Communicating Better to the Public – Go Personal.

Ridley’s response to Lynas

By Matt Ridley, Bishop Hill, Nov 7, 2014


Expanding the Orthodoxy

Climate economics expert urges “critical” investment shift

By Staff Writers, Paris (AFP), Nov 06, 2014


Questioning European Green

The cost of public policy

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Nov 7, 2014


A brilliant illusionist trick: The shining new EU climate policy

By Fred Mueller, WUWT, Oct 27, 2014


Crumbling Energy Network Poses Threat To UK’s Industry

By Alan Tovey, Sunday Telegraph, Via GWPF, Nov 1, 2014


Questioning Green Elsewhere

Greens take the moral low ground

Why environmentalists defend the wealthy against the poor

By Matt Ridley, Rational Optimist, Nov 5, 2014


Non-Green Jobs

Map of the day: Shale oil and gas = jobs, income growth, and economic prosperity

By Mark Perry, AEI, Nov 2, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Funding Issues

Millions For The Met Office To Carry On Getting It Wrong

By Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph, Via GWPF, Nov 1, 2014


Republicans Likely to Nix Funding for UN Climate Agencies After Midterms

By Denis Fitzgerald, UN Tribune, Nov 4, 2014


The Political Games Continue

Inhofe: I’ll chair Environment Committee

By Timothy Cama, The Hill, Nov 5, 2014


Senate GOP to fight on Keystone, climate rules, McConnell says

By Timothy Cama, The Hill, Nov 5, 2014


Litigation Issues

White House Keeping These Global Warming Documents out of the Sunlight

By Fred Lucas, The Blaze, Oct 31, 2014


Subsidies and Mandates Forever

Green levies on energy bills to double by 2020, official estimates show

Subsidies to pay for new wind, solar and nuclear plants will treble by 2030, official estimates show

By Emily Gosden, Telegraph, UK, Nov 6, 2014


EPA and other Regulators on the March

House to vote on EPA ‘secret science’ bills

By Timothy Cama, The Hill, Nov 6, 2014


EPA Hides Science Behind Draconian Regs

By Larry Bell, Newsmax, Oct 27, 2014


Energy Issues – Non-US

Venezuela, with world’s largest reserves, imports oil

By Peter Wilson, USA Today, Nov 2, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Government mismanagement of natural resources.]

Germany’s Turn Against Coal Risks More Reliance on Russia

By Stefan Nicola, Tino Andresen and Brian Parkin, Bloomberg, Nov 3, 2014


The green blob and shale

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Nov 5, 2014


Winter Freeze: 15 Million UK Homes Plan to Ration Energy Use to Tackle ‘Sky High’ Bills

By Ian Silvera, IBN, Nov 6, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Energy Issues — US

Are Environmental Regulations Causing US Utility Bills to Surge?

As dated coal plants continue to shut down, a new report says two-thirds of US utility bills will spike by as much as 25 percent.

By Naureen Malik and Harry Weber, Bloomberg, Renewable Energy, Oct 29, 2014 [H/t NCPA]


Advanced Coal-Fired Combined Heat and Power Plant Begins Operation in U.S.

By Aaron Larson, Power, Nov 5, 2014


[SEPP Comment: No discussion of costs for this specialized facility.]

Washington’s Control of Energy

Feds increase Arctic oil estimates in move to appease court

By Laura Barron-Lopez, The Hill, Oct 31, 2014


Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?

Plunging Oil Prices Set Off a Global Chess Game

Huge implications of a lower cost per barrel will make John Kerry’s job even tougher.

By Norm Ornstein, National Journal, Nov 6, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Return of King Coal?

The Social Justice of Coal

The world’s poor deserve an expansion of coal production.

By Robert Bryce, National Review, Nov 6, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


So You Think We’re Reducing The Use Of Coal? — Think Again

By James Conca, Forbes, Oct 23, 2014


Is Coal Demand Falling In China?

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Nov 3, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Newsbytes- The New Coal Boom

Cheap & Abundant Coal Biggest Challenge For UN Climate Agenda

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Nov 3, 2014


Oil Spills, Gas Leaks & Consequences

Where Did Deepwater Horizon Oil Go?

Tracking where and how oil traveled in the deep ocean isn’t easy

By Christopher M. Reddy, David L. Valentine, WHOI, Oct 27, 2014


Where did the Deepwater Horizon oil go? To Davy Jones’ Locker at the bottom of the sea

New analysis traces oil to its resting place on the Gulf of Mexico sea floor

By Staff Writers, NSF, Oct 27, 2014


Nuclear Energy and Fears

Germany faces suits worth billions over nuclear phase-out

By Staff Writers, Berlin (AFP), Nov 04, 2014


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind

The End Is Nigh … For Britain’s Wind Bubble

Energy giants decide that big offshore projects are not financially viable

By Danny Fortson, The Sunday Times, Via GWPF, Nov 2, 2014


Dear GOP: Don’t Rescue Obama Energy Policy with PTC Extension (lame duck peril)

By Robert Bradley, Master Resource, Nov 7, 2014


More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve

By Planning Engineer, Climate Etc. Nov 5, 2014


[SEPP Comment: The indirect, “soft” costs can be devastating.]

Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Other

A Pipe Dream

By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Nov 7, 2014


Ethanol 15%

By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Nov 4, 2014


Environmental Industry

Exposing the Green Money Machine

By Alan Caruba, Warning Signs, Nov 4, 2014


Other Scientific News

Rare 2.5-billion-year-old rocks reveal hot spot of sulfur-breathing bacteria

By Staff Writers, College Park MD (SPX), Nov 07, 2014


The Danger of Advocacy Masquerading as Science

By David Ropeik, Big Think, Nov 4, 2014 [H/t Climate Etc.]


Other News that May Be of Interest

N[orth] Korea EMP Attack Could Pose Greatest Threat to US

By Larry Bell, Newsmax, Nov 3, 2014


Increase in Ozone Eating Chemicals Detected,

By Staff Writers, University of Leeds, Nov 5, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: A natural cause for decline in ozone?]

Political bias in peer reviewed science

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Nov 5, 2014




Another eye-roller: Global warming will make you sneeze more

By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Nov 6, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Enhanced atmospheric CO2 greatly benefits plants, thus causes more pollen. Focusing on the negative, ignores the great benefits.]

Eye roller: Climate Change Threatens NASA Space Operations – AGW ‘could pose a risk to its operations and missions’

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Nov 4, 2014


The rising catastrophe of The Pause Refugees

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Nov 8, 2014


[SEPP Comment: A bit of humor.]


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 9, 2014 9:28 pm

The election proved belief in CAGW is losing favor. People are smarter than the media. CAGW was rarely, if ever, brought up by the Left. It looks like CAGW has jumped the shark.

Reply to  markl
November 10, 2014 6:42 am

Why did “Climate Change” advocates do so poorly in this election?
Marty DeBergi (rockumentary director): The last time Tap toured America, they where, uh, booked into
10,000 seat arenas, and 15,000 seat venues, and it seems that now, on their current tour they’re being booked into 1,200 seat arenas, 1,500 seat arenas, and uh I was just wondering, does this mean uh…the popularity of the group (MOVEMENT!) is waning?
Ian Faith (Spinal Tap manager and “Global Warming” true believer): Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no…no, no, not at all. I, I, I just think that the.. uh.. their appeal is becoming more selective.

Mike from the cold side of the Sierra
November 9, 2014 9:43 pm

yeah, jumped that shark about 30 years ago and still jumping.

Rud Istvan
November 9, 2014 9:56 pm

Hey SEPP. Choose your economics more wisely. Broadsides do you not credit.

M Courtney
November 10, 2014 1:30 am

From ‘Where Did Deepwater Horizon Oil Go?’ By Christopher M. Reddy, David L. Valentine, WHOI, Oct 27, 2014

The Gulf of Mexico is not a pristine location. It has a history of industrial oil pollution, as well as an estimated 200,000 gallons per day seeping from the ocean floor. These “leaky faucets” are a form of chronic pollution that has been going on for thousands of years in the Gulf.

So why would anyone think that the Gulf of Mexico would be irreversibly harmed by this accident?
The loss of life was a tragedy.
But the Gulf of Mexico thrives with oil, naturally.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  M Courtney
November 10, 2014 3:32 am

MC- bad link.

M Courtney
Reply to  Alan Robertson
November 10, 2014 6:27 am
November 10, 2014 1:46 am

Number of the Week: 0.0000006%. Energy commentator Donn Dears estimates that three new cellulosic ethanol plants costing about $775,000,000 are able to produce around 0.0000006% of the government mandated 16 billion gallons cellulosic ethanol required in 2022. The plants are heavily subsidized. See link under Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Other

This kind of stupidity needs to be repealed! Nate Lewis is a Cal Tech chemistry professor working on making fuels from sunlight. He has a number of lectures on YouTube. He’s a good speaker and presents a very realistic view on the limits and scale of energy use. @41:00 he has a good critique of biofuels:

Brian H
November 10, 2014 6:53 am

What should the new legislative leadership do? Engage in a thoroughgoing purge of the civil service and agencies wherever possible to get rid of those building empires on the Great Socialist hope, AGW. In most cases, evidence of scientific and professional malfeasance will be easy to find.

Reply to  Brian H
November 10, 2014 9:00 am

Expose the media and Chicken Littles with thorough and accurate information. Stop government support of CAGW by silencing and censuring agencies that should not be involved in climate policy (NASA, really?) Restore historical temperature records. Repeal laws and acts that punish and tax businesses for producing CO2. The people will be more than happy to embrace a climate perspective not based on fear and guilt.

Brian H
November 10, 2014 7:12 am

The Reveille talk gives an interesting stat: 10% of fuel in the US must be ethanol in a few yrs(5?); 25% of the US corn crop currently manages 2% of current demand.
So meeting the mandate will require 125% of US corn.

November 10, 2014 10:21 am

IPCC wants to “phase out” use of fossil fuels by 2100. Funny.
Simply imagine that a monarch in 1914 would have given orders about generation and use of energy in his country until the year 2000.
And the IPCC is even trying to command the world.

Brad Rich
November 10, 2014 2:04 pm

Fuel from cellulose? $775,000,000 to produce 0.0000006% of 16 billion gallons. That’s over $80,000 per gallon. By what standard is this an efficient end to Global Warming?

%d bloggers like this: