Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #161

The Week That Was: 2014-12-20 (December 20, 2014) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project


Quote of the Week: The real problem in speech is not precise language. The problem is clear language. Paraphrased from Richard Feynman.


Number of the Week: 15, 17, 50 to 100 years?



There will be no edition of The Week That Was on December 27. TWTW will resume on January 3, 2015.


Dear Reader of The Week That Was,

The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) is a 501-c-3 organization, incorporated in Virginia. Its FID# is 54-1645372 and donations are US tax deductible. Support for SEPP comes entirely from private donations; we do not solicit support from industry or government.

Therefore, we can honestly claim that we are not beholden to anyone and that our writings are clear from any outside influence.

We are also proud of the fact that SEPP is frugal: no fancy offices, no employees, no salaries paid to anyone; in fact, we donate book royalties and lecture fees to SEPP

The past few years have been very productive:

In collaboration with like-minded groups, we produced hard-hitting comments for the record and provided scientific testimony on proposed Federal climate and energy policy. We expect this material to surface in future litigation over excessive regulation.

SEPP has also spawned VA-SEEE (Scientists & Engineers for Energy & Environment), with 7 active chapters throughout Virginia, writing to local papers, testifying in Richmond, etc.

On a global level, we established NIPCC in 2007 (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) to respond to the false claims of the UN-IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and its followers — that use of fossil fuels, and CO2 emissions, will lead to climate disasters.

All four of the voluminous NIPCC reports and their Summaries are available at www.NIPCCreport.org.

In 2013, the Chinese Academy of Sciences translated and published a book based on two NIPCC reports and organized a Workshop in Beijing.

The Heartland Institute, our publisher, has organized nine well-attended ICCC events (International Conference on Climate Change), featuring many of the 50+ NIPCC authors.

A few weeks ago. Dr Fred Singer, our founder and president celebrated his 90th birthday After 25 years at the helm, he plans to retire as SEPP president, but hopes to continue as Chairman of the Board for as long as possible.

To donate to SEPP by check please make it payable to SEPP and send it to the address below: or

To donate to SEPP by credit card or pay pal: Please go to www.SEPP.org, hit the donate button on the bottom of the page, then hit the donate button on the next page and follow the instructions.


S. Fred Singer, PhD

Chairman, Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

1600 S. Eads St., Suite 712-S

Arlington, VA 22202-2907





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

The Game in Lima: The high-stakes energy and diplomacy game in Lima finally ended with little real damage to the industrialized world, in spite of the best efforts of delegates from Western Europe and the United States. The game is sponsored by the UN Conference of Parties (COP) to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and over 190 countries participate. The delegates from the West failed in their efforts to establish binding commitments for nations to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Instead, there will be several smaller meetings and questionable commitments before the COP-21 meeting in Paris next December.

Somewhat amusingly, during the conference a joint report by the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and the Join Research Centre, “Trends in Global CO2 Emissions 2014 Report” was released stating that CO2 emissions are at an all-time high. Even this failed to panic the developing countries to agree to a binding limit on CO2 emissions.

According to Michael Jacobs, writing in Project Syndicate, the Lima conference had two goals: 1) establishing an outline for the 2015 Paris agreement and 2) agree to terms under which countries will devise their national commitments. “…one highly significant decision has now effectively been made. Abandoning the rigid distinction between developed and developing countries paves the way toward an agreement that all countries, including the US and China, can sign.”

His view is questionable. As with many international commentators, Mr Jacobs, a Visiting Professor at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, fails to recognize that the US is not an authoritarian state and that an international agreement signed by the President of the United States, does not have the force of law in the United States, without approval of two-thirds of the US Senate, as delineated in the Constitution. Given the results of the election in November, Senate approval is extremely unlikely in 2015 and even less likely during the presidential election year of 2016. It is unlikely that the President can finesse this Constitutional requirement as he is trying to finesse statutory law in attempting to implement his plan to control CO2 emissions from US power plants and similar major facilities.

Based on reports, among developing countries, the influence of China and, India are growing. The influence of the West is diminishing. With no increase in global surface temperatures for over 15 years and no increase in global atmospheric temperatures for over a decade, the Western demand that the world should limit CO2 emissions to stop increases in global temperatures is becoming absurd. Other than a despot, what leader of a developing country would insist on controlling use of fossil fuels, when the benefits for expanding prosperity are becoming so obviously? China is showing the way, particularly as it is controlling pollutants known to damage human health, without controlling CO2 emissions. Western scientists and politicians claim CO2 emissions are causing unprecedented and dangerous global warming, yet fail to produce compelling physical evidence to support this claim.

Certainly, the West dispatching diplomats with opulent life-styles, such as Secretary of State John Kerry, is not producing dramatic results in developing countries. Western nations need to rethink the purpose of these efforts, and, most importantly, the rigor of the science the west claims to embrace. See Articles #1 and #2, and links under A New World Agreement?


Plateau or Pause? It is becoming obvious to many promoters of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and their politicians, that global temperatures are not rising as expected, predicted, or projected (depending on one’s choice of terms). Carried in a post on Climate Etc., by Judith Curry, Astrophysicist Donald Morton, a former Director General of the Herzberg Institute for Astrophysics of the National Research Council of Canada, asks “Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models?” He most decidedly states NO. He gives a well-reasoned argument for his position and articulates some of the problems in Climate Science as stated by the UN IPCC and its supporters (the Climate Establishment).

Among the reasons stated, justifying that future rising temperatures will not validate the models, is that we do not know what caused the plateau in temperatures or if future temperatures will rise or fall. Clearly, knowledge of climate as demonstrated in the models is incomplete. Without knowledge of the natural influences on temperatures, there is no reason to assume a future knowledge of human influence is accurate. The time-frame of the current plateau in temperatures is no longer important.

Morton refers to gases such as CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, etc. as “minor absorbing gases” rather than “greenhouse gases” because the term greenhouse is inadequate in explaining what the gases actually do in warming the earth. [Water vapor is the most important of these absorbing gases and is not minor.]

Further, Morton discusses some of the recent explanations for the temperature plateau, without evaluating these explanations. He points out:

When the rising temperatures of the 1980’s coincided with an increasing concentration of CO2, the model makers assumed that human activity was the primary cause, never thoroughly investigating natural contributions. The next step is to assess which ones are significant and add them to the models. Climate predictions without accounting for the relative importance of natural and human effects are useless because we cannot tell whether any proposed change in human activity will have a noticeable effect.

Morton discusses other important, and controversial issues, such as the use of “Parameterization in Place of Physics … Uncertainty in the Climate Sensitivity … Applying statistics to Biased Samples of Models … Nonlinearity and Chaos in the Physics of Climate … The Validation of Climate Models.”

He concludes by asking “What Should We Do Now?” For which he provides a partial answer, including: return to a rational discussion, discuss what are optimum global temperatures and CO2 concentrations, what are the effects of increasing population on CO2 production; stop asserting CO2 emissions by industrial countries are the primary cause of previous warming, cease claiming that rising temperatures are causing more occurrences of extreme weather, and, most importantly, “admit that we do not yet understand our climate well enough to say that the science of global warming is settled.”

Morton’s essay provides a good basis for a robust discussion on the status of climate science. Perhaps the essay should be circulated among members of the 114th Congress, to be convened on January 3, 2015. See link under Seeking a Common Ground.


Expanding Control: The administration has directed agencies of the US government to consider the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on government, government-funded, or government approval-required projects. The directive is based on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA was used to prevent the building of an effective movable barrier-dam system that would have helped protect New Orleans for Hurricane Katrina.

The consequences of this expansion of governmental powers can be far-reaching and deadly. See Article # 5 and link under Models v. Observations.


Green Jobs: The political issue of green jobs, particularly in the solar and wind industries, has subsided in recent months, perhaps with good reason. An article in the specialized newspaper, The Hill, gives a hint why. The headline reads: “Job losses hit all but renewable energy across power sector.” The article linked to a report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration on the shift in employment by the electric power generation industry from January 2011 to 2014. The devil is in the details

The net loss in the power industry generation was more than 5,800 jobs: Fossil fuels jobs were down 1%, about 1,750 jobs; nuclear down 9%, about 4,900 jobs; wind up 16% about 400 jobs; solar up 201%, about 500 jobs. Clearly, the renewable energy industry does not provide a significant number of power industry generation jobs, in spite of years of subsidies and mandates from Washington and various states. See links under Green Jobs.


Production Tax Credit: In one of its last acts, the 113th Congress passed an extension to the major federal subsidy program for wind power, the Production Tax Credit. The extension was for the calendar year 2014. Since the status of the credit was uncertain, few developers of wind power started new projects in 2014. As wind promoters complained, the approximately 2 weeks to begin a project is short. Early signs are that the 114th Congress will be hostile to an extension of such a subsidy. Contrary to what many citizens believe, some members of Congress may read beyond the headlines. See links under Subsidies and Mandates Forever.


Fracking Shale: On December 13, TWTW linked to a report from the Congressional Budget Office: “The Economic and Budgetary Effects of Producing Oil and Natural Gas From Shale.” In general, the report found that, assuming prudent practices are insisted upon, hydraulic fracturing does not threaten drinking water. It is important that State agencies that oversee these techniques properly monitor them. One issue that requires monitoring is the proper disposal of waste water, not only from the actual technique but also from a potentially enormous amount of water that can be released from deep underground. The report specifically addressed different shale formations, such as the Marcellus in New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia as well as those in Texas. As noted in the report the practice has greatly expanded jobs in various parts of the country.

Except in certain quarters, there is little question that hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling is dramatically changing the world geopolitical outlook for oil and natural gas. Virtually weekly, TWTW links to articles discussing these changes as well as the enormous increases in US production of these fuels.

On December 17, Governor Andrew Cuomo decided to ban hydraulic fracking of shale in New York State. The important Marcellus formation is in the southern and-western part of the state, which is experiencing economic stagnation. The governor referred to his experts who cited unspecified health concerns. As the Wall Street Journal stated: “In other words, all of the Governor’s men couldn’t find conclusive evidence that fracking presents a significant risk to public health or the environment. So they’re going to ban fracking until they do.” Hydraulic fracturing has been used since 1947 and the EPA has yet to uncover credible evidence that it causes groundwater contamination. The best one of the governor’s experts, the acting state health commissioner, could do was that he would not want to live in a community where fracking was taking place. One may not wish to live in a community with a major jet airport, but is that a reason to issue a state-wide ban on jet airports?

Perhaps without realizing it, the President and the Governor are giving an excellent campaign issue for a pro-energy Presidential candidate. “What do you support – energy and jobs – or imaginary fears?” See Article #3, links under Non-Green Jobs, and Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past? and http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/49815-Effects_of_Shale_Production.pdf


Number of the Week: 15, 17, 50 to 100 years? In his essay, Donald Morton raises the question on how long the temperature plateau must last before computer models are recognized as incorrect. The ongoing argument is frivolous. The models are incapable of prediction today, and there is no reason to assume that they would be capable of prediction in the future.

One of the more extreme views of length of time was expressed by Susan Solomon, a Coordinating Lead Author of the Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis of the Fourth IPCC Assessment report (AR-4). It was for AR-4 that the IPCC was honored with the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. A quote is appropriate:

“There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.” FAQ 8.1 WGI, The Physical Science Basis



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

1. Lima’s Magic Climate Beanstalk

China and India said every ‘shall’ had to be changed to ‘may.’

Editorial, WSJ, Dec 18, 2014


Summary by GWPF


2. Climate Talks Yield Plan to Spread Burden of Emission Cuts

Issues Such as How to Finance the Bulk of Poorer Countries’ Cuts Left for Later Meetings

By William Mauldin, WSJ, Dec 14, 2014


3. How Crude Oil’s Global Collapse Unfolded

Tracing the Plunge In Oil Prices Back to Texas

By Russell Gold, WSJ, Dec 12, 2014


4. New York Moves to Ban Fracking

Cuomo Aides Cite Health Risks; Farmers, Energy Firms Attack Decision

By Erica Orden and Lynn Cook, WSJ, Dec 18, 2014


Summary: New York Fracking Ban Will Cost the State Jobs, Revenue

By Staff Writers, NCPA, Dec 19, 2014


5. White House Proposes Vetting Projects for Climate Change

Move Likely Would Affect Fossil-Fuel Operations the Most

By Amy Harder, WSJ, Dec 18, 2014




Climategate Continued

Reply to Laden and Hughes on Sheep Mountain

By Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, Dec 19, 2014


“In making this comparison, I emphasized the importance of out-of-sample testing as a means of validating a proxy reconstruction. I showed that, after 1980, the bristlecone chronology declined dramatically, while NH temperatures went up.”

[SEPP Comment: More on the misleading us of data in the “hockey-stick”.]

Challenging the Orthodoxy

Will a return of rising temperatures validate the climate models?

By Donald Morton, Climate Etc. Dec 15, 2014


97 Articles Refuting The ‘97% Consensus’ on global warming

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Dec 19, 2014


Hot New Book: Steyn, Delingpole, Bolt, Carter, Plimer, Lindzen, Lawson, Watts, Nova

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Dec 16, 2014


Ironically, Change Catches Up With Climate Change Alarmists in Lima

By Tim Ball, WUWT, Dec 18, 2014


Defending the Orthodoxy

The new climate denialism: More carbon dioxide is a good thing

By Dana Milbank, Washington Post, Dec 15, 2014


[SEPP Comment: According to the opinion writer (Dana Milbank): “I’m neither a scientist nor an economist, but I’ve heard that correlation is not the same as causation. I pointed out to Bezdek that increasing energy use fueled the economic growth, and CO2 was just a byproduct. So wouldn’t it make more sense to use cleaner energy?” The question is not true if the electricity costs more and is unreliable – even a Washington Post opinion writer should under the need for affordable, reliable electricity – printing presses and computers will fail frequently if powered by wind or wind generated electricity.]

The Oil Price Opportunity

By Kemal Derviş, Project Syndicate, Dec 16, 2014


“Of course, climate science is not precise; instead, it works in terms of probability ranges. But uncertain estimates do not mean that the risk is any less acute.”

[SEPP Comment: The IPCC and global warming promoters have failed to establish probability ranges and distributions for natural occurring temperature ranges. Without such probabilities, the climate establishment cannot determine probability ranges for human influence.]

Questioning the Orthodoxy

Plus ça change…

By Martin Livermore, The Scientific Alliance, Dec 19, 2014


The 2-Deg Global-Warming Limit

By Bob Tisdale, WUWT, Dec 16, 2014


[SEPP Comment: A variation of the origin of an icon of a failing political movement.]

Christian Schönwiese, Hans Von Storch: “2°C Target” Purely Political One…From “Politicians Disguised As Scientists”

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Dec 15, 2014


Diary dates, moving on edition

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Dec 18, 2014


“You have to laugh at the idea of global warming science moving beyond such simplistic questions as whether the globe’s surface is actually warming. No doubt this change of emphasis is unconnected to the failure of the said surface to actually, erm, get any warmer.”

Global-warming true believers are in denial

By Debra J. Saunders, San Francisco Chronical, Dec 18, 2014 [H/t timothy Wise]


Climate Policy Risk: Who’s In Denial?

By Marlow Lewis, Cooler Heads, Dec 19, 2014


A New World Agreement?

Honest brokers

Climate negotiations in Lima stumbled on transparency, but there is time to adjust.

Editorial, Nature, Dec 16, 2014


The Real Lima Deal

By Michael Jacobs, Project Syndicate, Dec 15, 2014


Global CO2 emissions at all-time high

By Staff Writer, Business Standard, Dec 18, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Link to report: Trends in global CO2 emissions: 2014 Report

By Olivier, et al, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2014


A Climate Accord Based on Global Peer Pressure

By Coral Davenport, NYT, Dec 14, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


[SEPP Comment: The US is identified as “the world’s largest historic carbon polluter” (boldface added)]

Assessing the Outcome of the Lima Climate Talks

By Robert Stavins, Belfer Center (Harvard), Dec 14, 2014 [H/t Climate Etc.]


The toothless climate change agenda

By Ivo Vegter, Daily Maverick, Dec 15, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


In Lima, success IS the junket, the headlines, the “voluntary” soft option

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Dec 15, 2014


Lima climate talks: The same old farce

Greenpeace vandals provided a welcome diversion from the UN conference in Lima 300 miles away, writes Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker, Telegraph, UK, Dec 13, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


(Plant) Food for Thought

Letter from Allan MacRae, ICECAP, Dec 18, 2014


We have a climate change deal – sort of

By Rick Moran, American Thinker, Dec 14, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Social Benefits of Carbon

Tropical forests may not combat climate change

By Eric Hand, Science Mag, Dec 15, 2014


“wastefully absorbing money within the orthodoxy” ?

[SEPP Comment. Why assume tree ring growth in mature trees is the response to carbon fertilization? The Idsos have catalogued tree root growth as a major component.

Problems in the Orthodoxy

Climate Custers’ Last Stand…Top German Climate Scientists See No End To “Warming Pause”. Now Concede Oceans A “Major Climate Factor”

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Dec 19, 2014


Where Has Global Warming Gone?

By Ka-Kit Tung, Project Syndicate, Dec 19, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Criticizing the use of average surface temperatures as the measure of global warming. Without this metric, would the great emotional fear of global warming be possible?]

Presidency of Change IPCC

By Staff Writers, Belgotopia, Dec 14, 2014 [H/t Anne Debeil]


Seeking a Common Ground

December 13, 1989: The NYT Got It Right on Global Warming

By Robert Bradley Jr, Master Resource, Dec 16, 2014


Peter Lee: ‘If It’s Climate Policy It Must Be Ethical…’

By Peter Lee, University of Portsmouth, Dec 16, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: His version of ethics aside, biofuels are an unnecessary loser in the US.]

Rt Revd Dr Peter Forster: Ethics, Science And Climate Policy

By Rt Revd Dr Peter Forster, Bishop of Chester, GWPF, Dec 16, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Expanding on Lee’s paper, above.]

Ethics and climate change policy

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Dec 17, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Additional views on the above.]

San Francisco Shenanigans

Another attempt to link climate and extreme weather, to be presented at the AGU Fall Meeting

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Dec 13, 2014


#AGU14 – NOAA establishes ‘tipping points’ for sea level rise related flooding

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Dec 18, 2014


“…We find that in 30 to 40 years, even modest projections of global sea level rise–1½ feet by the year 2100–will increase instances of daily high tide flooding to a point requiring an active, and potentially costly response and by the end of this century, our projections show that there will be near-daily nuisance flooding in most of the locations that we reviewed.” (Boldface added)

[SEPP Comment: NIPCC projects a rise of about 7 to 8 inches to 2100. There is no empirical basis for a rise in global sea level of 1.5 feet.]

From #AGU14 Surprising findings in Greenland’s melt dynamics – glaciers retreated rapidly between 1900 and 1930

By Anthony Watts. WUWT, Dec 16, 2014


From #AGU14 – satellites detect albedo change in the Arctic, resulting in more absorbed solar radiation

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Dec 17, 2014


Good news from #AGU14 ‘Arctic sea ice is holding up to global warming better than expected’

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Dec 17, 2014


Review of Recent Scientific Articles by CO2 Science

Two Thousand Years of Northern European Summer Temperatures

By Esper, J., Duthorn, E., Krusic, P.J., Timonen, M. and Buntgen, U. 2014. Northern European summer temperature variations over the Common Era from integrated tree-ring density records. Journal of Quaternary Science 29: 487-494, Dec 17, 2014


“…they note that their temperature reconstruction “has centennial-scale variations superimposed on this trend,” which indicate that “conditions during Medieval and Roman times were probably warmer than in the late 20th century,” when the previously-rising post-Little Ice Age mean global air temperature hit a ceiling of sorts above which it has yet to penetrate. .. And so we continue to collect ever more real-world evidence for the fact, that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the Earth’s current level of warmth.”

Daytime-Only vs. 24-Hour Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment

Bunce, J.A. 2014. Limitations to soybean photosynthesis at elevated carbon dioxide in free-air enrichment and open top chamber systems. Plant Science 226: 131-135. Dec 17, 2014


Hurricane Surge Risk in Northwest Florida, USA

Lin, N., Lane, P., Emanuel, K.A., Sullivan, R.M. and Donnelly, J.P. 2014. Heightened hurricane surge risk in northwest Florida revealed from climatological-hydrodynamic modeling and paleo-record reconstruction. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 119: 8606-8623. Dec 16, 2014


[SEPP Comment: This historical frequency of extreme storm surges have gone down, not up.]

Growth Response to CO2 (Forests) — Summary

Review of multiple papers on trees at varying latitiudes, Staff Writers, CO2 Science, Dec 16, 2014


In concluding this topical summary, it should be clear to everyone, based on real-world evidence garnered from a multitude of experimental endeavors, that the realization of even the most far-fetched climate-change predictions of the IPCC would be unable to stamp out the many beneficial impacts of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on the growth and development of Earth’s forests, be they boreal, tropical or something in between.

Models v. Observations

AGU 2014: Quantifying the Mismatch between Climate Projections and Observations

By Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels, CATO, Dec 18, 2014


[SEPP Comment: As compared with observations, the predictive power of climate models continues to trend downward, significantly.

The Great Cooling Of Arctic Sea Ice Projections: Having Been Burned, Scientists Far More Cautious With Projections

Dirk Notz of the Hamburg-based Max-Planck-Institute: Arctic sea ice could again expand in the coming decade

By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt, Trans/edited by P Gosselin, Dec 17, 2014


You Ought to Have A Look: Poor Climate Models, Ethics and Climate Policy, New White House Guidelines

By Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger, CATO, Dec 19, 2014


Why aren’t climate models better at predicting Arctic sea ice loss?

By Roz Pidcock, Carbon Brief, Dec 17, 2014


Measurement Issues

Consistency Of The US Temperature Record

By Steven Goddard, Real Science, Dec 18, 2014


NCDC Climate Extremes Index Is Inverted From Reality [National Climatic Data Center of NOAA]

By Steve Goddard, Real Science, Dec 19, 2014


No Records Highs Possible In The Satellite Temperature Datasets in 2014 (Now Includes November Data Except For HADCRUT4)

By Werner Brozek Edited by Just The Facts, WUWT, Dec 16, 2014


NOAA Is Updating Their Sea Surface Temperature Dataset

By Bob Tisdale, WUWT, Dec 15, 2014


Changing Weather

World’s Second Largest Reinsurer Swiss Re Sees Huge Drop In Losses From Natural/Manmade Catastrophes In 2014!

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Dec 18, 2014


Link to press release: Preliminary sigma estimates: global disaster events cost insurers USD 34 billion in 2014, below recent annual averages.

By Staff Writers, Swill Re, Dec 17, 2014


The total loss of life of 11 000 from natural catastrophe and man-made disaster events this year is down from the more than 27 000 fatalities in 2013.

Global warming’s influence on extreme weather

By Staff Writers, Phys Org, Dec 12, 2014


[SEPP Comment: See link immediately above.]

Why Hasn’t A Major Hurricane Hit the U.S. in 9 Years?

By Andrea Thompson, Climate Central, Dec 10, 2014 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


“I’ve long been an advocate of computer models to help gain insight on the behavior of dynamic systems. However, it seems that, in recent years, models have become the answer to everything instead of the grammar of the question. It would also seem that no one is really trying to falsify what are essentially complex hypotheses.” – Clyde Spencer

About That Climate Change-Induced Polar Vortex Snowfall in Atlanta Earlier This Year

By Sierra Rayne, American Thinker, Dec 18, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


#Santabomb winter storm predicted for Northeastern U.S. at Christmas

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Dec 17, 2014


What Are Weather Bombs?

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Dec 16, 2014


Polar bears in winter – a seasonal review of insights and research

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Dec 16, 2014


Changing Climate

New Study: Two Thousand Years of Northern European Summer Temperatures Show a Downward Trend

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Dec 18, 2014


Two Thousand Years of Northern European Summer Temperatures Show Cooling Trend

By Staff Writers, ICECAP, Dec 18, 2014


Arctic Warmed Six Degrees From 1900 To 1940

By Steven Goddard, Real Science, Dec 18, 2014


North Atlantic signaled Ice Age thaw 1,000 years before it happened

By Staff Writers, London, UK (SPX), Dec 19, 2014


Past global warming similar to today’s

Press Release by Staff Writers, Uni. Of Utah, Dec 15, 2014 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


[SEPP Comment: Causation is blurry – methane or CO2?]

Researchers Find Northeast Pacific Surface Warming (1900-2012) Caused By Changes in Atmospheric Circulation, NOT Manmade Forcings

By Bob Tisdale, WUWT, Dec 17, 2014


Changing Seas

World’s beaches being washed away due to coastal development

From Florida to the Costa del Sol, costly sea defences are accelerating beach erosion and will ultimately fail to protect coastal towns and cities from rising tides, say experts

By John Vidal, Guardian, UK, Dec 15, 2014 [H/t Climate Etc.]


[SEPP Comment: Erosion and accretion have long been problems with sandy beaches, and associated development. Though sea level rise is largely a local issue, there is no reason to assume it will accelerate globally. The cited 1 foot (0.3 meter) over the next century is exaggerated.]

Rising Seas Are Nothing New

By Viv Forbes, American Thinker, Dec 15, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice

Arctic Sea Ice ‘More Resilient’ Than Thought

Arctic sea ice volumes in the autumn of 2014 are above the average set over the last five years and sharply up on the lows seen in 2011 and 2012, according to the latest satellite data

By Staff Writer, Reporting Climate Science, Dec 15, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Apparently those who “thought” never bothered to check historic records.]

Arctic sea ice volume holds up in 2014

Arctic sea ice may be more resilient than many observers recognise.

By Jonathan Amos, BBC, Dec 14, 2014 [H/t Climate Etc.]


CryoSat extends its reach on the Arctic

By Staff Writers, Paris (ESA), Dec 17, 2014


Changing Earth

Violent Volcanic Blasts Ripped Through Antarctic Ice Sheet Twice

By Becky Oskin, Live Science, Dec 17, 2014 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


Agriculture Issues & Fear of Famine

To label or not to label GMOs: That is the question being considered by federal lawmakers

By Staff Writers, ACSH, Dec 12, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Perhaps all “organic” food grown with manure should be so labeled including which type. Proper composting is critical to kill pathogens.]

Un-Science or Non-Science?

Climate change could cut world food output 18 percent by 2050

By Chris Arsenault, Reuters, Dec 18, 2014 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


Link to paper: Climate change induced transformations of agricultural systems: insights from a global model

By D Leciere, et al, Environmental Research Letters, Dec 12, 2014


Meanwhile, significant but uncertain reduction of major agricultural areas affects the Northern Hemisphere’s temperate latitudes, while increases to non-agricultural zones could be large but uncertain in one-third of regions.

[Comment by Clyde Spencer: And here I thought that increasing night-time temperatures would result in earlier Springs and later Winters, resulting in longer growing seasons. Yet, these modelers seem to think that changing rainfall patterns, that they can’t predict, will be detrimental.]

Clearing rainforests distorts wind and water, packs climate wallop beyond carbon

By Staff Writers, Charlottesville VA (SPX), Dec 19, 2014


Polar bear biologists miss the mark in new study on invasive mark-recapture effects

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Dec 18, 2014


[SEPP Comment: The procedures have no lasting effects because the models say so!]

Lowering Standards

BBC Bang The Drum For DECC & The EU

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Dec 18, 2014


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

Sea levels worldwide have risen by feet?

By Sierra Rayne, American Thinker, Dec 19, 2014


Warming leads to more run-ins with polar bears

By Clément Sabourin, AFP, Dec 18, 2014 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


[SEPP Comment: Or is it due to an increase in the bear population?]

Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.

Snow Is Down and Heat Is Up in the Arctic, Report Says

By Kenneth Chang, NYT, Dec 17, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Link to NOAA’s Arctic Report Card, 2014 report

Rising air and sea temperatures continue to trigger changes in the Arctic

Arctic is warming at twice the rate of anywhere else on Earth

By Staff Writers, NOAA, Dec 17, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Major issues with statements such as: A special essay in this year’s report card, written by the Norwegian Polar Institute and Polar Bears International, assesses polar bear populations in some areas where good long term data are available. The most recent data shows that a population decline in western Hudson Bay, Canada, was due to earlier sea ice break-up, later freeze-up and, thus, a shorter sea ice season. Polar bears depend on sea ice to travel, hunt, and mate, and in some areas, to den.]

Challenging NOAA’s “Arctic Report Card 2014” on polar bears

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Dec 19, 2014


[SEPP Comment: See link immediately above.]

Recent S. Beaufort polar bear count was a cherry-picked result – new evidence

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Dec 17, 2014


Climate Change Claims for Alabama Fall Short

By Sierra Rayne, American Thinker, Dec 16, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Fact-Checking the Clean Energy and Climate Change Fact Sheet for Tennessee

By Sierra Rayne, American Thinker, Dec 14, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Spectacular Cheating On The NOAA Report Card

By Steven Goddard, Real Science, Dec 19, 2014


Communicating Better to the Public – Go Personal.

NTZ Stings A Nerve…Rockefeller Philanthropy’s “Climate Nexus” Lashes Out At Harvard Astrophysicist Soon

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Dec 16, 2014

NTZ Stings A Nerve…Rockefeller Philanthropy’s “Climate Nexus” Lashes Out At Harvard Astrophysicist Soon – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/12/16/ntz-stings-a-nerve-rockefeller-philanthropys-climate-nexus-lashes-out-at-harvard-astrophysicist-soon/#sthash.VAAAMmXf.dpuf

Denying the evidence and using ad hominems

By Geoff Brown, The Climate Sceptics Party, Dec 18, 2014


Naomi Klein runs amok, calls skeptics white supremacists

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Dec 18, 2014


Communicating Better to the Public – Use Propaganda on Children

#AGU14 Stanford researchers use a girl scout troop as guinea pigs for climate ‘behavior change’

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Dec 19, 2014


Questioning European Green

The Bell Tolls

By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Dec 16, 2014


DECC Forced To Release Data Showing Impact Of Climate Policies On Energy Prices

By Paul Homewood, WUWT, Dec 17, 2014


The Cost Of The UK Govt’s Climate Policies [by 2020]

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Dec 16, 2014


Green policies to add up to 40pc [percent] to cost of household electricity

Official figures – initially withheld by ministers – show steep rises in the price of electricity by the end of the decade to pay for the Government’s policies to tackle climate change

By Robert Mendick, Telegraph, UK, Dec 2014


[SEPP Comment: The Bureaucrats Dream: household bills will drop if only those nasty people stop using electricity.]

UK households to pay 1 billion pounds for backup power plants

By Karoline Schaps, Reuters, Dec 19, 2014


Questioning Green Elsewhere

International Emissions Idiocy

By Alan Caruba, Warning Signs, Dec 17, 2014


New era of cheap oil ‘will destroy green revolution’

By Tom Bawden, Independent, UK, Dec 12, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Green Jobs

Job losses hit all but renewable energy across power sector

By Laura Barron-Lopez, The Hill, Dec 19, 2014


Link to Report: Power sector employment declines, except for renewable electricity generators

By Staff Writers, EIA, Dec 19, 2014


Non-Green Jobs

Cuomo Killed Lots Of Jobs By Pointlessly Banning Fracking

Editorial, IBD, Dec 19, 2014


Funding Issues

$10 billion UN-linked climate change fund wants immunity from prosecution

By George Russell, Fox News, Dec 18, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Fight looms over $3 billion Obama administration payment to UN-linked climate fund

By George Russell, Fox News, Dec 15, 2014


The Political Games Continue

After day of drama, Senate passes $1.1 trillion spending bill for Obama’s signature

By Susan Ferrechio, Washington Examiner, Dec 13, 2014


Subsidies and Mandates Forever

Congress extends wind tax credit, but only for 2 weeks

By Sammy Roth, The Desert Sun, Dec 17, 2014


Why Congress’ Momentary Extension Of A Wind Tax Credit Isn’t Worth ‘A Carton Of Eggs’

By Jeff Spross, Think Progress, Dec 18, 2014


New [to be built] gas plants ‘to be shelved after failing to win subsidies’

Government scheme to keep lights on offers lower subsidies than expected, saving consumers money but meaning big new power plants unlikely to be built, experts say

By Emily Gosden, Telegraph, UK, Dec 18, 2014


Why innovation is the best path to a climate solution

By Bjorn Lomborg, The Globe and Mail, Can, Dec 16, 2014


”The commission unambiguously concluded that the subsidies do not create green innovation, because it is much safer for companies to keep relying on heavily subsidized wind turbines, solar panels, and biomass instead of further developing existing technologies and develop new, viable alternatives to fossil fuels. The subsidies simply create the wrong incentives, and the commission ‘found no positive correlation between subsidization and innovation in any technology sector.’”

EPA and other Regulators on the March

EPA Rule Threatens Electricity Reliability

By Staff Writers, NCPA, Dec 12, 2014


Summary of Dec 10 article in WSJ: Where Will You Be When the Lights Go Out?



EPA Should Re-Examine Climate Rule’s Scientific Basis – Part II

By Marlo Lewis, Global Warming.org, Dec 12, 2014



Special Interests Influence Costly EPA Regs

By Larry Bell, Newsmax, Dec 16, 2014



EPA to take comments on ozone plan

By Timothy Cama, The Hill, Dec 16, 2014



Federal Agencies Seek Expansive Water Regulations

By Staff Writers, NCPA, Dec 11, 2014


Summary of Dec 8 article in the WSJ, “Watch Out for That Puddle, Soon It Could Be Federally Regulated,”



Brick masons facing new emissions standards

By Tim Devaney, The Hill, Dec 17, 2014


Congress’s hostile takeover of endangered species efforts

By Erik Molvar, The Hill, Dec 15, 2014


[SEPP Comment: From a bureaucratically driven EPA that ignores scientific findings?]

EPA rule on coal waste to disappoint green groups

By Zack Colman, Washington Examiner, Dec 19, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Once considered a waste product, coal ash is used for roads, concrete blocks, cement, bricks and other useful materials.]

Feds order up more efficient dishwashers

By Tim Devaney, The Hill, Dec 18, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Doubtful the agency considers labor efficiency for those who do the dishes is important.

Energy Issues – Non-US

FT: Cheap Oil Burns Green Energy

By Pilita Clark, Financial Times, Via GWPF, Dec 18, 2014


Putin’s Victory: Chevron Pulls Out Of Shale Gas Project In Ukraine

By Roman Olearchyk, Financial Times, Via GWPF, Dec 16, 2014


Declining oil prices: OPEC vs. (future) Shale?

By Afshin Molavi, Al Abrabiya News, Dec 16, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Energy Issues — US

Coming Soon to a Utility Bill Near Your?

By Steven Hayward, Power Line, Dec 14, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Link to report: Potential Energy Impacts of the EPA Proposed Clean Power Plan

By Harrison & Smith, et al. NERA, Oct 2014


[SEPP Comment: Does the New York Times realize that policies it promotes drive up energy costs?]

DHS: 100 Million Americans Could Lose Power in Major Sun Storm

Document says FEMA unsure of damage to grid from magnetic storm

By Bill Gertz, Washington Free Beacon, Dec 12, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


What the CROmnibus [Latest Spending Bill] Means for the Power Sector

By Thomas Overton, Power, Dec 15, 2014


Fracking Drives Global Oil Prices Down

By Jeffrey Folks, American Thinker, Dec 13, 2014


Low Oil Prices to Slow, but Not Derail US Shale Boom

By Karen Boman, Rigzone, Dec 17, 2014 [H/t GWPF]


Nature fires back at EIA shale gas critique

By Daniel J. Graeber, Washington (UPI), Dec 18, 2014


Washington’s Control of Energy

Government Policy Bigger Threat Than Falling Energy Prices

By Dick Evans, IBD, Dec 16, 2014


“The biggest threat to Texas and our energy future in the U.S. is neither falling prices nor competition from other nations; it is the U.S. government.”

[SEPP Comment: Other than Washington, the biggest threat is prolonged low price.]

Keystone ‘not even nominal benefit’ to US consumers, Obama says

By Laura Barron-Lopez, The Hill, Dec 19, 2014


Keystone [court] decision punted to next year

By Laura Barron-Lopez, The Hill, Dec 19, 2014


Obama shields Alaska bay from oil, gas leasing

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


White House puts off climate change announcement [Methane]

By Zack Colman, Washington Examiner, Dec 17, 2014


Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?

Gov. Cuomo bans fracking in New York, citing “health risks”

By Staff Writers, ACSH, Dec 18, 2014


NY Gov. Cuomo announces intent to ban fracking

By Thomas Lifson, American Thinker, Dec 18, 2014


Anti-fracking fringe

Letter, Steve Everley, The Hill, Dec 16, 2014


Return of King Coal?

Global coal demand to reach 9 billion tonnes per year by 2019

IEA report says despite decarbonisation push, China will not see ‘peak coal’ during outlook period

By Staff Writers, IEA, Dec 15, 2014, [H/t GWPF]


Coal, an Outlaw Enterprise

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, NYT, Dec 17, 2014


Robert Kennedy is president of Waterkeeper Alliance

[SEPP Comment: Coal is responsible for pulling more people out of poverty than anything else!]

Japan’s Turn to Coal Belies Claim That Climate Change Mitigation Comes Cheap

By William Yeatman, Global Warming.org, Dec 16, 2014


Oil Spills, Gas Leaks & Consequences

Oil spill closes Enbridge line in Saskatchewan

By Daniel J. Graeber, Calgary, Alberta (UPI), Dec 18, 2014


Nuclear Energy and Fears

IEA: US needs clarity on nuclear, carbon capture

By Laura Barron-Lopez, The Hill, Dec 18, 2014


Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind

Europe’s Largest Battery Storage Project Begins Operations in UK

By Thomas Overton, Power, Dec 15, 2014


[SEPP Comment: No cost breakdown.]

Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Vehicles

Green Cars Aren’t So Environmentally Friendly After All

By Kerry Jackson, IBD, Dec 15, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


“Green” Cars Are Actually Very Brown

By Steven Hayward, Power Line, Dec 18, 2014 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Link to paper: Life cycle air quality impacts of conventional and alternative light-duty transportation in the United States

By Tessum, Hill, and Marshall, PNAS, Dec 10, 2014


Nissan Leaf Fails The Test

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Dec 19, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Comparing total cost of owning a Nissan Leaf and a Ford Focus (diesel and petrol) in the UK, subsidies eliminated.]

Health, Energy, and Climate

Fracking could carry unforeseen risks as thalidomide and asbestos did, says report

By Adam Vaughan, The Guardian, UK, Nov 28, 2014


[SEPP Comment: Or the risk of an asteroid eliminating the planet.]

Oh Mann!

Hilarious irony – Michael Mann to give lecture on ‘Professional Ethics for Climate Scientists’

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Dec 14, 2014


Environmental Industry

How a Greenpeace stunt in Peru drives home the global climate divide

By Nick Miroff, Washington Post, Dec 10, 2014


Still More Politicized Pseudo-Science?

By Paul Driessen, Townhall, Dec 13, 2014


The Green Blob and the Green B-Lobby

It’s time to pin down the definition of the Green Blob

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Dec 20, 2014


Other Scientific News

Goddard instrument makes first detection of organic matter on Mars

By Bill Steigerwald for Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt MD (SPX), Dec 17, 2014


NASA, Planetary Scientists Find Meteoritic Evidence of Mars Water Reservoir

By Staff Writers, Washington DC (SPX), Dec 19, 2014


Earth’s most abundant mineral finally has a name

By Tona Kunz, Argonne IL (SPX) Dec 18, 2014


Geomagnetic reversal: Understanding ancient flips and flops in Earth’s polarity

By: Ivy F. Kupec, NSF, Dec 19, 2014


Other News that May Be of Interest

Giant Chinese water diversion starts to flow

By Staff Writers, Beijing (AFP), Dec 12, 2014


ACSH’s Top 10 Health Scares of 2014

By Staff Writers, ACSH, Dec 15, 2014


Can cosmetic chemicals lower your kids IQ? No. This study is just more junk.

By Staff Writers, ACSH, Dec 12, 2014


Asteroid that wiped out dinosaurs nearly knocked off mammals

By Staff Writers, Albuquerque NM (SPX), Dec 18, 2014


NIH Blows $1.3 Billion On Failed Children’s Health Study

Editorial, IBD, Dec 17, 2014


Rules of engagement: Transforming the teaching of college-level science

A science education advocate who trained as a molecular biologist uses her analytical background to create teaching strategies that energize both students and faculty

By Susan Reiss, NSF, Dec 18, 2014




Cost of cloud brightening for cooler planet revealed

Press Release, Manchester University, Science Daily, Dec 15, 2014 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


Link to paper: Factors determining the most efficient spray distribution for marine cloud brightening

By Connolly, McFiggans, Wood, and Tsiamis, Philosophical Transactions A, Royal Society, Nov 17, 2014


Study: Beaver Dams Make Global Warming Worse

By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, Dec 18, 2014 [H/t Cooler Heads]


[SEPP Comment: Imagine the global warming caused by beavers before their pelts became popular! Was killing beavers the cause of the Little Ice Age?]


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 21, 2014 7:36 pm

I always thought that Horoscopes and studies of Gender/Genus were the worst examples in the world of pseudoscience…..
I have to admit, I was wrong.

December 21, 2014 9:23 pm

Typo–change “under” to “understand”:
“[SEPP Comment: …. even a Washington Post opinion writer should under the need for affordable, reliable electricity –

December 21, 2014 10:19 pm

Thomas Kast’s time-lapse Northern Lights video in the polar bear science/ polar bear winter article is great!!!
Some related interesting reads I’ve come across… related to the CRomnibus
These politicians are up for sale and that is the entire problem. Indeed, the banks virtually rent space on the floor of Congress. They own the building and almost everyone inside. Nobody gives a damn about the future of the economy and the nation just how much will the banks give them to keep office.
We are headed into another crisis of greater proportions because NY money center banks are no longer about “RELATIONSHIPS” but a free-for-all based solely onTRANSACTION oriented business. One deal to the next without any long-term strategy. We are headed into a vortex that may kill the dollar as the reserve currency on the next decline because the banks will blow up big time on this next round.
What took place in Washington over the past two weeks with the repeal of Dodd Frank and then the effective repeal of the Volcker Rule sounds strikingly familiar to at least three previous periods in American History that led to total disaster…
Consequently, additional proof that this is not limited to Russia is just open your eyes. There is a crisis in ALL EMERGING markets. As the dollar rises and commodities decline, this is part of the cycle that sets in motion the Sovereign Debt defaults.
Russia’s central bank raised its key interest rate to 17 percent in the early hours of Tuesday morning in an emergency move to halt a collapse in the ruble as oil prices decline and the country’s sanctions-hit economy slides towards recession. We are looking at a major decline within the world economy. This is part of Big Bang. We will produce a major and very serious report on this entire subject matter after the closing of 2014.
LKH says:
December 16, 2014 at 10:45 pm
Travis, you incorrectly stated that the risks to communities and the environment were less with pipelines than with rail….This is the “common wisdom” promoted by pipeline and oil producers, but it isn’t true. There is an appearance of “safety” because, after the initial destruction of people’s properties, the damage from pipelines is often below ground…but being unseen does not mean it doesn’t exist. In fact, not having immediate surface damage can delay finding out and being able to control the damage.
The Keystone XL is horrible to communities and the environment, and not because the bitumen from the tarsands is so much worse than other petro products, but because it has to be mixed with admittedly highly toxic chemical solvents to allow it to move in a pipeline. One-third to two-thirds of the “dilbit” (pipeline contents) would be these toxic chemicals, not potential fuel. The dilbit chemicals, although the mixture is a secret, belong to a class of chemicals that is highly toxic to humans, plants and livestocks, and unlike oil, it does dissolve in water and it does also move into the air. In the air, it creates a serious public health threat. In water, it dissolves and moves easily through surface or groundwater, and it does not breakdown over time and is resistant to normal biodegradation and to other removal techniques. Pretty much, once it’s in the water, it stays there until it is drunk or used, at which time it poisons most animals and plants that ingest it. About the only way to remove it from water is to expose the water to air, at which point it evaporates….and moves into the air, where it stays until it is breathed or until it rains, at which time it dissolves and moves back the soil and water on land.
The second part of the KXL lies directly over areas of the aquifer that are close to the surface and unprotected by depth or confining soil or rock layers. There are thousands of known public drinking water wells in this area, but that doesn’t count all the irrigation and private wells in the whole aquifer….and although the bitumen will just sit and muck things up, this will travel throughout, and contaminate the aquifer…..which is one of the largest sources of fresh water on our continent, and almost the sole source of water for most of the mid-west and into the southwest. I think 16 states use water from this aquifer, and it provides the vast majority of drinking and irrigation water to the farm belt. Something like 20-25% of our country’s total agricultural output is dependent on safe water (without toxic poisons), and ranges from of course corn and wheat to cotton and cattle. It is considered “normal” for there to be some leakage from this pipeline, so one is looking, at best, for slow, undetected and unstopped poisoning of the drinking and agricultural water for middle America…..
And this doesn’t even talk about the dangers to the communities for building this. It requires taking a lot of land, including cutting up and destroying many farms, ranches and Indian lands. Proponents love to discuss the “jobs”, but when you look closely, there are less than 4000 one-year FTEs in construction, and the rest are mostly jobs that are already there….but won’t be if the KeystoneXL pushes out farmers and ranchers, who are now the source of income for entire communities. Once they are gone and the water and soil are no longer drinkable/workable, we would have a leaky pipeline amid a wasteland and nothing to show for it. Oh, the consultants did not include the job losses of people who are being forced off their land in the job count, so it is a huge gross miscalculation.
Is it better if there is a train wreck? Well, at least people would know where it was, and it would be easier to limit the ongoing damage. Better to leave it in the ground and focus on new non-fossil fuel energy….
We also place our country at a great economic risk….For surface spills, the tar sands product has proven to be many times more expensive to clean up than regular oil or gas, and spills that are from much smaller pipelines have proven to cost way more than the U.S. government requires an oil company to pay for….so any spills that can be cleaned up would probably end up being paid for the American taxpayer….This potentially and realistically makes the money spent on cleaning up prior spills and leaking underground storage tanks from last century look like pocket change…..
On top of that, TransCanada’s deal includes them not having to remove the pipeline and do any restoration once and if it no longer active. (Most pipeline agreements include language that includes company removal of the old pipes to limit the ongoing damage from corrosion and leakage of the last contents.). So, Canada and TransCanada are proposing that we move their poisonous dilbit for them, and take the risk from the first minute the faucet is turned on until …. forever.
Yes, it is a NIMBY issue, but what right does a Canadian company have to inflict something on our country that Canada will not built in their own country? What right does Canada have to expect us to sacrifice our land, water and people? We don’t need the product and we certainly don’t need to risk so much of our natural, agricultural, cultural and other economic wealth to turn U.S. into the cheap leaking underground pipeline from Canada to refineries (that don’t have the need for it) to end up on the world market. The consultant even admitted that the U.S. will get no preference for the final product if we allow the pipeline…..
So, tell me why we should even continue the conversation about this somehow being an environmentally safe, economically and common-sense thing to do….

[Cut the garbage. Log in with a readable name. .mod]

Reply to  uıʇɹɐɯ pɹɐʍpE
December 22, 2014 5:51 am

The Keystone XL is horrible to communities and the environment, and not because the bitumen from the tarsands is so much worse than other petro products, but because it has to be mixed with admittedly highly toxic chemical solvents to allow it to move in a pipeline. One-third to two-thirds of the “dilbit” (pipeline contents) would be these toxic chemicals, not potential fuel.

What a crock of s**t. You don’t know jack about what you are talking about.
(1) Bitumen is naturally occurring in the oil sands area. If you put a canoe in the Athabasca River upstream of Fort McMurray (where the oil sands are) and paddle towards Fort McMurray, then pull over to the banks and turn the canoe over, the hull is coated in oil. The banks ooze it into the river that leads into Fort McMurray, and have been doing it for centuries. The Indians told the Jesuits about it in the early 1700s. They used it to coat the bottom of their bark canoes.
(2) If the “dilbit” were diluted 1/3 to 2/3 with some solvent, toxic or otherwise, by your hyperbolic definition, it wouldn’t be fuel.
(3) The bitumin is diluted with condensed natural gas = diluted bitumin = Dilbit.
(4) Synthetic crude oil (the carbon is taken out of the bitumin and replaced with hydrogen) can also be also used as a diluent = synthetic bitumin = Synbit.
(5) The Keystone pipeline currently carries 500,000 barrels a day from Canada to US refineries. And other heavy crudes from California, Russia, Nigeria, and Venzuela travel through US pipelines the same way.

Reply to  uıʇɹɐɯ pɹɐʍpE
December 22, 2014 5:59 am

Another thing, sunshine: the majority of oil operators in the Alberta Oil Sands are American, not Canadian. They are mostly Texas producers with Canadian offices, and they DON’T WANT Alberta to refine the oil because they save money doing it in TX and OK. They have been providing 22% of our oil here in the US for over 40 years. Bet you didn’t even know there was a Keystone Pipeline operating right now since 2010, did you.

Reply to  uıʇɹɐɯ pɹɐʍpE
December 22, 2014 6:05 am

Don’t get me started. “Sovereign Debt” countries have no reason to default. That’s why they are “sovereign.” They can pay all debts denominated in their own currencies; they don’t need bond vigilantes to finance themselves (like the Euro countries can be subject to). More Pete Peterson/goldbug/ Peter Schiff alarmism.

December 21, 2014 10:39 pm

if there is a consensus on CAGW, then why isn’t there a consensus computer model?
It appears that no “state of the science” model can accurately simulate temperature and precipitation trends due to major uncertainties about the physical world – winds, clouds, humidity, currents, solar to name just a few.
The models seem to have one thing in common – the consensus belief that global temperatures will increase more in the 21st century than they did in the 20th century. Therefore a “consensus” model must produce that outcome to be accepted by “peer” review.
I think I could write a very simple equation that produces that outcome.

Climate Researcher 
December 21, 2014 11:56 pm

A review of the new book “CLIMATE CHANGE THE FACTS 2014” by about 24 authors.
The best and most relevant chapter in this new book is that by William Soon, namely Chapter 4 “Sun Shunned” in which he discusses things such as the eccentricity of the Sun’s orbit that I have also pointed out as the principal regulator of glacial periods.
The rest of the chapters on the “science” do not discuss the valid physics which is really what does determine Earth’s surface temperatures. Instead the “lukes” all reiterate the false claim that carbon dioxide causes significant warming of the surface by radiative forcing. Nowhere is the assumed process of forcing actually discussed. We just get the usual false paradigm that carbon dioxide traps outward radiation and thus supposedly makes the surface warmer.
Carbon dioxide does not trap thermal energy. It disposes of what it absorbs either by subsequent radiation or by sensible heat transfer (via molecular collisions) to other air molecules which outnumber it by 2,500 to 1. It also helps nitrogen and oxygen cool through such collisions, and may subsequently radiate the energy thus acquire out of the atmosphere.
All radiation between regions at different temperatures can only transfer thermal energy from the warmer region (or surface) to a cooler region. This means all heat transfer in the troposphere is generally upwards to cooler regions, with a proportion always getting through to space. There is no thermal energy transferred to a warmer surface. The energy transfer is the other way. The Sun’s radiation is not helped by radiation from the atmosphere which is only sending back some of its own energy now with much lower energy photons. Radiating gases reduce the insulating effect by helping energy to escape faster, and that is why moist air in double glazed windows also reduces the insulating effect, just as does water vapor in the troposphere.
Nowhere in the book do we see the surface temperature explained correctly using Stefan Boltzmann calculations. No one ever does this, because it is an absolute stumbling block for climatologists. The mean solar flux entering the surface is only about 163W/m^2 after 52% of the solar radiation has been either absorbed or reflected by the surface, clouds or atmosphere. But such a low level of radiation would only produce a very cold -41°C. That’s even colder than what the IPCC claims would be the case, namely -18°C without greenhouse gases. They deduce that by assuming that the whole troposphere would be isothermal due to convective heat transfer, including sensible heat transfers by molecular collision.
Hence all the “luke” authors fall for the trap of not actually explaining the existing surface temperature, let alone what carbon dioxide might or might not do. How could you work out the latter if you don’t know your starting point? The truth is that you cannot calculate the surface temperature of any planet that has a significant atmosphere by using radiation calculations. Hence all the considerations pertaining to radiation and absorption by carbon dioxide are totally within a wrong paradigm.
That assumption by the IPCC (and thus by the “lukes” who have written this book) that the troposphere would be isothermal was rubbished in the 19th century by some physicists who understood the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is still being rubbished to this day, and even more so, now that physicists realise that the Second Law is all about entropy increasing to the point where there are no unbalanced energy potentials. In a gravitational field this state of thermodynamic equilibrium is attained when all the energy potentials involving gravitational potential energy, kinetic energy and radiative energy balance out. That is when the environmental temperature gradient is attained, and the very fact that it exists enables us to explain all planetary surface temperatures (and the required energy flows) without the slightest reference to back radiation, let alone trace gases like carbon dioxide. Only water vapor has a significant effect in lowering that gradient because of its radiating properties. It thus cools the surface, and that puts a big spanner in the works for the IPCC et al.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  Climate Researcher 
December 22, 2014 2:18 am

Got your post, Thanks! *g* (who Are you? And I don’t mean that in the ‘High Plains Drifter’ sense….. 😛 )

Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
December 22, 2014 3:06 am

CR is most likely DC who is banned from WUWT. If I spell out DC, my comment will go into moderation.

M Courtney
Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
December 22, 2014 3:11 am

A lot of people are getting banned from WUWT these days.
It’s becoming quite worrying.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
December 22, 2014 1:25 am

Merry Christmas, Anthony!
Merry Christmas to all, and to all, a new blog! http://earthshattered2.blogspot.ca/
(nothing of import. Just me adding my two cents’ worth, and trying to give more coverage to issues that come up piece-meal in the climate-change conversation)

December 22, 2014 2:06 am
M. Venkatachalam Thoorun
December 22, 2014 6:29 am

Attention Global leaders and UNFCCC: To conserve about 40% of fuel & thereby reduce carbon emissions, to control climate change and global warming, to prevent road crash deaths and save millions of people from pollution related diseases and to reduce 80% of traffic jams, to uplift the downtrodden and reduce economic inequalities etc. for the first time in the world, I possess a WIPO approved miracle invention. So, is there anybody in the world who can help me to dedicate this PANACEA to humankind? Please Mail to: vthoorun.rcrv@gmail.com

December 23, 2014 7:07 am

China is showing the way, particularly as it is controlling pollutants known to damage human health, without controlling CO2 emissions.

I question that assertion. The air pollution problem is growing worse by the day and they’re spawning and growing future “super fund” sites as well. Would that did try to prevent more pollution, I could then congratulate them on their economic, industrial, and environmental success. They don’t yet qualify.

Danny Thomas
December 23, 2014 11:05 am

Build a pipeline? Keystone is about 40% complete as it stands. Just a kerfluffle:
I would be more than happy to forward some dollars committed to research, but cannot do so for ANY organization with a preset agenda so was surprised to see that request for funds here. Disappointed to see that it’s not oriented towards science, but instead towards politics:
“In collaboration with like-minded groups,” (no better than the AGW side)
And:”On a global level, we established NIPCC in 2007 (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) to respond to the false claims of the UN-IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and its followers — that use of fossil fuels, and CO2 emissions, will lead to climate disasters.”
If the science isn’t settled how can one base establishing an organization to respond to false claims that use of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions will lead to climate disasters when we do not know if that is the case yet, or not. I don’t think most here are concerned about it, but many state the “science is unsettled”. If they had stopped at “responding to false claims” it’d be fine, but as scientists having a preset goal is not science but only politics.

Venkatachalam Muthusamy
Reply to  Danny Thomas
December 24, 2014 12:24 am

Attention Global leaders and UNFCCC: To conserve about 40% of fuel & thereby reduce carbon emissions, to control climate change and global warming, to prevent road crash deaths and save millions of people from pollution related diseases and to reduce 80% of traffic jams, to uplift the downtrodden and reduce economic inequalities etc. for the first time in the world, I possess a WIPO approved miracle invention. So, is there anybody in the world who can help me to dedicate this PANACEA to humankind?
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Watts Up With That? wrote:
> Danny Thomas commented: “Build a pipeline? Keystone is about 40% > complete as it stands. Just a kerfluffle: > http://phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/ImageCollections/Images/phmsa-npms-map-inside-pg.png > I would be more than happy to forward some dollars committed to research, > but”

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights