News & Commentary May 7, 2010

 

What? Americans "bombarded" with cancer causes - report

WASHINGTON - Americans are being "bombarded" with chemicals, gases and radiation that can cause cancer and the federal government must do far more to protect them, presidential cancer advisers said on Thursday.

Although most experts agree that as many as two-thirds of cancer cases are caused by lifestyle choices like smoking, poor diet and lack of exercise, the two-member panel said many avoidable cancers were also caused by pollution, radon gas from the soil and medical imaging scans. (Reuters Health)

Is this purely enviro-whacko gibberish or is there a more sinister factor at play?

The timeline is certainly troubling: Obamacare rammed through; Obamacare must cut costs; medical imaging costs much $s; scare people about medical imaging; clone Big Tobacco profit theft and claim Big Chemical and other industry "causes" expensive to treat cancers; misappropriate business profits to prop up socialized medicine...

Are Kripke and Leffall associated with total looney tunes Frederick vom Saal per chance? I do know that in 1987, Dr. Kripke served as Chair of the Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board Subcommittee on Causes and Effects of Stratospheric Ozone Depletion -- the insane bunch that decided that, by preventing a 10-percent decline in ozone and a concomitant rise in ground-level UVB, the agency was preventing millions of UVB-induced skin cancers. EPA's estimate of monetized benefits from the rules ranged from $8 trillion to $32 trillion dollars. And, despite study after study conceding that the predicted longterm UVB increase has not been measured, and no clear evidence of a link between ozone loss and increasing skin cancer incidence or even that UVB is the radiation of significance, no one at the agency has ever suggested that the ludicrously high estimate of benefits was wrong.

Meanwhile U.S. Panel Criticized as Overstating Cancer Risks (NYT)

 

Ideologues, maybe? Eat organic, cancer panel urges

A government report claims that the way Americans farm could be putting the public at risk for cancer and recommends people eat more organic products.

The study was issued today by the President’s Cancer Panel and is a look at the potential risks from the environment. The cancer panel has two members – the third seat is vacant – and both were appointees of President George W. Bush.

The study includes a chapter on agriculture and goes into a number of potential health hazards, including from pesticides such as the herbicide atrazine that’s used on corn fields but also from nitrogen fertilizers and veterinary pharmaceuticals. Fertilizer may increase cancer risk through the breakdown of the nitrogen during digestion, the study said. Nitrogen from fields seeps below ground and into drinking water supplies. (Philip Brasher, Des Moines Register)

 

ObamaCare: A NICE Kettle Of Fish

With the presidential ink not quite dry on the health overhaul legislation, Republicans and their conservative allies promise to repeal it. That could prove a long battle, one that could stretch out for years.

But opponents of the administration's plan should take heart. One of its main proposals is on the cusp of being repealed. Not here in America, but across the Atlantic in the United Kingdom.

With health costs spiraling, one of the core ideas of the White House's health takeover is the creation of an independent body of experts to steer clinical decisions.

IPAB, the Independent Payments Advisory Board, is founded on the belief that Washington bureaucrats can help manage health care decisions, adjusting Medicare payments to reward excellence and punish waste.

The idea doesn't sound unreasonable. As the president has noted, there often is a red pill and a blue pill, with the red one costing twice as much, yet no more effective.

If the logic is seductive, it's easy to understand why Britain's prime minister embraced the idea in 1999. Faced with rapid inflation in the socialized National Health Service, Tony Blair created NICE, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence. (IBD)

 

Kids not getting enough sunshine: Low vitamin D common even among southern teens

NEW YORK - Most black adolescents have insufficient amounts of the sunshine vitamin in their blood, even those living in the sunny southeastern US, new research shows.

About a third of white teens also had insufficient vitamin D levels, Dr. Yanbin Dong of the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta and colleagues found. And while actual deficiency of the vitamin was rare among whites -- seen in only 3 percent of girls and 4 percent of boys -- it was common for black adolescents, especially girls.

Several studies have found a high prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency in adolescents, the researchers note. However, investigations in sunnier locales have looked at vitamin D levels in the winter months, when scarcer sun means levels are lower. (Reuters Health)

Maybe it's a cost Kripke and the EPA forgot to factor in when they did that absurd ozone layer hysteria thing... Gosh the loons have a lot to answer for.

 

Surgery should be "last resort" for obese children

LONDON - Weight-loss surgery should only be used in the most severely obese of children, and then only with extreme caution due to the risks and the fact its effectiveness remains unknown, health experts advised on Thursday.

In a review of studies on the obesity epidemic, scientists from Britain and the United States said lifestyle changes such as better diet and more exercise should always be the first option, and treatment with drugs should be used rarely.

Bariatric surgery, or weight-loss surgery, such as operations to apply gastric bands to limit the stomach size of severely overweight people, should be a last resort, they said.

"The risks of bariatric surgery are substantial, and long-term safety and effectiveness in children remain largely unknown," Sue Kimm of the University of New Mexico, Debbie Lawlor of Britain's Bristol University and Joan Han of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, wrote in The Lancet journal. (Reuters)

 

Tap that water: Controversy surrounds the argument for dam-building in Africa

AFRICA is the “underdammed” continent. It is the least irrigated and electrified, yet it uses only 3% of its renewable water, against 52% in South Asia. So there is plenty of scope for an African dam-building boom. Ghana long ago dammed the River Volta, Egypt the Nile, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique the Zambezi. But there are new projects aplenty.

Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir, for instance, is so proud of the new Merowe dam in the north of his country that he made it a selling-point in his recent election campaign. Costing $1.8 billion, it will produce 1,250 megawatts and create a lake 174km (108 miles) long, above the Nile’s fourth cataract. If all goes well, it may even fulfil an old dream to irrigate swathes of farmland in northern Sudan, while sending electricity to run the thirsty air-conditioners of Khartoum. And all without dirtying the atmosphere, once the dams have been built.

China is building most of Africa’s new dams out of its own pocket, with all sorts of hoped-for spin-offs. International Rivers, a lobby that tries to save rivers from dams it says are destructive, admits that the Chinese are much greener these days. China Eximbank cancelled a loan for a dam in Gabon on environmental grounds. Even so, political instability, graft and incompetence have meant that many African dams, once built, have failed to produce what was promised. The Inga I and II dams on the Congo river have generated a fraction of the power they were meant to. The technology is demanding. Seasonal rains produce muddy rivers, with higher sedimentation than northern countries’ dams filled with melted snow. That means a shorter lifespan and heavier maintenance. Angola has spent $400m overhauling its dams and transmission lines. (The Economist)

 

Conflicts of Interest Affect Conservation Science

In a perfect world, scientific research is supposed to be completely objective and free of conflicts of interest. But University of South Florida researchers say that politics can overtake facts, with potentially detrimental effects for the integrity of science and the health of ecosystems. 

In a paper published in the journal Conservation Letters, biologists Jason Rohr and Krista McCoy document the impacts of conflicts of interest on science, humanity, biodiversity and ecosystem services, educate the readers on how to identify the many guises of conflicts of interest, and offer recommendations to reduce conflicts of interest for enhanced environmental and human health. (PhysOrg.com)

Yeah? Do they tell people how to identify misanthropists? Best advice I've seen is "Do something for the planet -- eat your greens".

 

Atrazine paper’s challenge: Who’s responsible for accuracy?

Study claims to have turned up many dozens of errors and misleading statements in a review of published data.

Buried within a new paper discussing conflict-of-interest issues is an intriguing little case study. It looks at risks to wildlife from atrazine — a widely used herbicide — as assessed by a massive peer-reviewed analysis of published data. It charges that this analysis “misrepresented over 50 studies and had 122 inaccurate and 22 misleading statements.”

Strong charges, and worth investigating. But after talking to the lead authors of the review paper and its critique, I come away with a suspicion that the real take-home message here is about something quite different: publishing’s ability to vet massive quantities of scientific information. The issue emerges in an examination of a 2008 paper in Critical Reviews in Toxicology. “Based on a weight of evidence analysis of all of the data,” it concluded, “the central theory that environmentally relevant concentrations of atrazine affect reproduction and/or reproductive development in fish, amphibians, and reptiles is not supported by the vast majority of observations.” For many other potential toxic endpoints, it said, “there is such a paucity of good data that definitive conclusions cannot be made.” (Janet Raloff, Science News)

 

UN food agency urges Africa to invest in farming

Under-investment in agriculture has left many governments across Africa struggling to feed their people, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization director-general Jacques Diouf said on Thursday.

"In sub-Saharan Africa, since 2009, over 265 million people are malnourished and 30 percent of the population suffers from hunger," Diouf said at the 26th session of FAO's Regional Conference for Africa in Luanda.

"This situation clearly demands our urgent and undivided attention."

He said only nine African countries had kept a promise made at an African Union Summit in 2003 to allocate at least 10 percent of their national budgets to agriculture. (Reuters)

 

Can drip irrigation break Africa's hunger cycles?

As the world's aid agencies scramble, yet again, to feed millions of hungry in Africa's Sahel, some smallholders in the semi-arid region are reporting bumper harvests of onions, potatoes and tomatoes.

The reason? Drip irrigation systems made up of water tanks and rows of black pipes, an Israeli innovation that some predict could end the area's aid dependency. Others however, including supporters of the system, warn of caveats.

"With the watering cans, we couldn't do more than one harvest per year. With this innovation, we can do as many as three, so our earnings are multiplied by three," said Yamar Diop, a 73-year-old father of ten.

During a visit to the region last week, U.N. aid chief John Holmes appealed not just for the tens of millions of dollars needed to keep people alive, but for more action to address the root causes of the recurrent food crises.

Farmers like Diop say they are doing just that. He is one of about 2,500 farmers across the Sahel who, over the last few years, have taken part in the African Market Garden, an Israeli initiative to use low pressure drip irrigation to break dependence on rain and boost crops, nutrition and incomes.

Diop's harvests will earn him 800,000 CFA francs ($1,624) over the year, while the U.N. will spend $190 million over the same period to get through the food crisis, prompting calls for the donors to invest more on long term projects.

"Niger is going to have a big problem this year," said Dov Pasternak, the head of the Sahel programme at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), referring to the rush to bring aid into the land-locked nation.

"This will cost millions but how much is being spent on agriculture? I have a gut feeling the ratio is huge in favor of food relief," he said. "It is the poverty that we have to deal with, rather than providing food security." (Reuters)

 

The human cost of the EU's fishing failure

The European Commission has finally admitted that the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy has failed. (Bruno Waterfield, TDT)

 

More unsafe assumptions: Leading international climate change experts focus on how to build food security in the face of climate change - 06.05.2010

Climate and agricultural researchers, policy makers, donors, and development agencies, both governmental and non-governmental, from all over the world have just met in Nairobi for a one-day conference, ‘Building Food Security in the Face of Climate Change’. The conference was an important part of a big international Mega Programme on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). The programme’s secretariat is based at LIFE- Faculty of Life Sciences at University of Copenhagen. (Press Release)

All hysteria aside, we have no reason to expect significant warming and planning should not assume it will occur.

 

Neanderthals live on in DNA of humans

The first comparison of the complete genomes of humans and Neanderthals reveals that up to 4% of our DNA is Neanderthal (The Guardian)

 

Jump to site menu or to Climate News & Views

National Association For Gun Rights

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
(The Unites States Constitution, Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.)
The first ten Amendments collectively are commonly known as the Bill of Rights.

Video Spoofing Michael Mann Removed by YouTube - Bogus Reason Given

It's back:

Climate/Climate change/Global warming

 

It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad: Climate change deniers accused of McCarthyism

Climate change experts face a "McCarthy-like" persecution by politically-motivated opponents, some of the world's leading scientists have claimed.

In a letter published in the journal Science, more than 250 members of the US National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel Prize laureates, condemned the increase in "political assaults" on scientists who argue greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet.

The 'climategate' scandal and mistakes by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have led to a surge in attacks on climate scientists around the world. (Louise Gray, TDT)

Scientists "disappear" historically well-documented events like the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age cold through tricks and data hiding to perpetrate a fraud with potential societal costs of trillions of dollars and literally millions of lives but reigning in this fraud is "McCarthyism"?

 

Leading scientists condemn 'political assaults' on climate researchers

Open letter defends the integrity of climate science and hits out at recent attacks driven by 'special interests or dogma' (The Guardian)

Read the full text of the open letter

Scientists who politicize their fields, or allow them to be politicized really can't whine about "political assaults", can they? Climate is one of the biggest political games of contemporary times -- even the alleged arbiter is the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change, not the Interdisciplinary Panel or the Dispassionate Science Panel but the purely political IPCC.

At its 40^th Session in 1988 the WMO Executive Council decided on the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and you've had since that time to raise concerns about political interference (which has always been considerable, to say the least) but you did nothing.

Interestingly, this was the same session in which the ozone farce was successfully launched (Sherwood Roland and Mario J. Molina had been peddling that nonsense since 1974 from UC Irvine although the "issue" was allegedly "discovered" in 1985 -- just conveniently ignoring that the seasonal phenomenon was actually observed in 1956 and hasn't changed since). So, too, was "acid rain" created as an issue although it has since properly died a quiet death -- 1988 was a big year for Maurice Strong and the people haters.

 

Climate McCarthyism?

Louise Gray’s latest article in the Daily Telegraph suggests that climate scientists caught in the Climategate and other scandals are feeling picked on. In fact they ‘likened the situation to the ‘McCarthy era’ in the US where anyone suspected of communist links was threatened with persecution.’

Specifically, members of the US National Academy of Sciences said:

“We call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them,” the letter read.

Where was the National Academy of Sciences and Louise Gray when skeptical scientists were being threatened with violence, prosecution and even execution?  Or is it only a matter of concern when warmists are feeling the heat, so to speak?

Here are TEN very real threats issued to skeptics:

Heidi Cullen, of The Weather Channel ‘is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their “Seal of Approval” for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.’

Talking Points Memo pondered the question ‘at what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers?’

Death threats were made against Tim Ball and others.

The United Nations kicked skeptic scientists out of press conferences.

Professor Stephen Schneider, an IPCC member, called armed security to have a skeptic removed from his presence.

CBS’s Scott Pelley compared skeptics to holocaust deniers.

Greenpeace uttered a threat to skeptics, ‘we know where you live’

David Suzuki called for politicians who questioned global warming science to be jailed.

Joe Romm wanted to strangle skeptics in their beds.

NASA’s James Hansen suggested skeptics be tried for high crimes against humanity.

Notice the difference between the skeptics being threatened and the warmists crying McCarthyism is that in the first instance, many prominent warmists were performing the McCarthyism.

I guess it would asking too much for Louise Gray to try and do a journalist’s job.  Even once. (Daily Bayonet)

 

Correctly: U.-Va. plans to comply with Cuccinelli subpoena

It looks like the University of Virginia does not plan to resist a subpoena from Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) asking for documents related to the work of climate scientist and former professor Michael Mann, despite requests from some advocacy groups that it does so.

In a statement this evening, university spokesman Carol Wood said the school has received a 60-day extension to reply to the civil investigative demand. The new date for handing over documents related to Mann's work is July 26. But while she said that it is appropriate for groups like the ACLU and the American Association of University Professors -- both of which have urged the university's visitors to go to court to resist Cuccinelli's request -- to weigh in, the school plans to turn over documents it retains from Mann's tenure at the school. He left in 2005. 

"The attorney general has broad authority to initiate an investigation such as this. And we are required by law to comply with the AG's request," Wood said. "At the same time, it is important that groups like the Faculty Senate and the AAUP take a stand. They are the ones able to initiate a public debate about state policy and whether the policy needs to be reviewed.

"The University has never received a complaint or allegation of academic misconduct on the part of Professor Mann. Had we, as a research institution, we have ample procedures in place to address such allegations. And while we may not understand the basis of the CID, we will gather what information may still reside at the University." (WaPo)

 

Although the editorial board is desperate to prop up the gorebull warbling scam: U-Va. should fight Cuccinelli's faulty investigation of Michael Mann

WE KNEW Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) had declared war on reality. Now he has declared war on the freedom of academic inquiry as well. We hope that Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) and the University of Virginia have the spine to repudiate Mr. Cuccinelli's abuse of the legal code. If they do not, the quality of Virginia's universities will suffer for years to come. (WaPo)

Odd. I just can't seem to locate their spirited defense of that State Climatologist of Virginia. Now, what was his name... ? Oh yeah: "In 1980, the University of Virginia recruited the [1980-2006] current Climatologist, Dr. Patrick Michaels, to become the permanent State Climatologist. On July 8th, 1980, Governor Dalton sent a letter of appointment to Dr. Michaels in which he states: 'It is my pleasure to appoint you as State Climatologist.'" I know the WaPo must have raised such a spirited defense but it just doesn't seem to be immediately available from archive...

 

Climate bill unveiling possible next week

A long-awaited bill to reduce pollution that contributes to global warming could be unveiled in the Senate next week, but likely without the public backing of an influential Republican lawmaker, Senator Joseph Lieberman said on Thursday. (Reuters)

Oh... Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant! Carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant!

They just don't seem able to grasp that...

 

Climategate: Sensenbrenner Report Challenges EPA Greenhouse Finding (PJM Exclusive)

Rep. James Sensenbrenner today releases a report calling the science behind the EPA's endangerment finding for carbon dioxide into question.
May 6, 2010
- by Charlie Martin

This morning, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), ranking member of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, will release a staff report on the scientific issues that tend to discredit the EPA’s endangerment finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

The report’s release coincides with the opening of a committee hearing entitled “The Foundation of Climate Science.” During the hearing the committee will hear testimony from five experts — four defending the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its reports against the criticisms raised since the release of the Climategate files last November, and one, Christopher Monckton, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who is a noted skeptic (as well as a Pajamas Media contributor).

The report summarizes a number of revelations that, according to Rep Sensenbrenner’s staff, combine to call into question the scientific validity of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Many of these have been reported in Pajamas Media since our original report on the Climategate files. (PJM)

 

Oh dear Lord! The EPA is still up to its nonsense: North America seeks agreement on tough greenhouse gas

The United States, Canada, and Mexico have proposed to amend a landmark global pact protecting the ozone layer to fight emissions of a refrigerant chemical thousands of times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, the U.S. EPA said on Thursday.

The proposal would expand the Montreal Protocol to phase down emissions of hydroflourocarbons, also known as HFCs, which are up to 14,000 times more damaging to the planet's climate system than carbon dioxide, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said.

"Reducing HFCs would help slow climate change and curb potential public health impacts," the EPA said in a release. (Reuters)

 

One in three voters against paying for climate change 'myth'

AUSTRALIANS are rebelling against the idea they should pay to fight global warming, entrenching the Federal Government's woes on the issue.

A new survey showed more than a third of voters don't want to pay for climate-change bills.

The authoritative Galaxy opinion survey also found that those who buy the family groceries and low-income earners are in the forefront of the new resistance.

It is a sign much of the electorate accept Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's ETS description as "a great big new tax".

The Government's abrupt, three-year pause in introducing an emissions trading scheme angered many of the 35 per cent of voters who believe human activity is changing the climate.

Now even some of those believers are refusing to pay the rises in power bills and other household costs which would be caused by an ETS, the survey has found.

About 35 per cent of all voters told Galaxy they did not want to pay a cent, and that group included 15 per cent of people who agreed with the concept of man-made climate change.

Of the change believers, 27 per cent would not pay more than $100 a year extra.

Almost half - 47 per cent - would not pay more than $100 a year to combat climate change, the poll commissioned by the Institute of Public Affairs showed.

About 60 per cent would not pay more than $300 a year.

If you buy the family groceries, you strongly oppose paying much if anything for an ETS.

The survey found 37 per cent of those who bought family supplies would not pay anything, and just over half would not pay more than $100 a year.

The survey showed two-thirds of respondents were not convinced by man-made climate change, despite "billions of dollars of government propaganda," said John Roskam of the Institute of Public Affairs.

"These polls also show Australians won't pay huge amounts of money to fix a problem they are not sure exists," said Mr Roskam.

The lower your income, the less you are likely to want higher bills, which is why nearly half the unemployed oppose the idea.

The greatest opposition to paying even a cent extra came from Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland. (Malcolm Farr, The Daily Telegraph)

 

Initiative To Suspend Calif’s AB 32 Global Warming Law Likely To Make Ballot

Backers of a state initiative to suspend California’s global warming law, AB 32, say they’ve turned in nearly twice the number of signatures needed to qualify for the Nov 2. ballot.

I’m going to use this post to describe the reasoning and evidence for the initiative and some of the evidence questioning the theory of man-caused climate change — especially the preoccupation with carbon dioxide.

This perspective is usually downplayed by other reporters, many of whom seem to think of themselves as part of a save-the-planet crusade, with a duty to persuade the public to join. I disagree. Moreover, since the conventional wisdom is so widely available elsewhere in the media, I don’t feel the need to repeat it here. (Bradley Fikes, NC Times)

 

Chinese lash PM on emissions inaction

A leading Chinese government adviser has criticised the gap between Kevin Rudd's action and rhetoric on climate change, saying he has reduced the chance that the world can curb global warming before it is too late.

Pan Jiahua, who addressed the Politburo on climate change policy in February, said the Prime Minister's decision to postpone the emissions trading scheme gave rich countries an excuse to do less and discouraged developing countries from doing anything.

''If he gives up on the ETS it suggests Australia will do nothing and the private sector will get the signal not to do anything to cut emissions,'' said Professor Pan, director of the Research Centre for Sustainable Development at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

''It is bad for Australia's image and sends a very negative message to the global community that the global target of limiting global warming to 2C by 2050 will not be achieved. The message to the developing world is that 'if even an industrialised country like Australia can't do it, how can we do it?''' (SMH)

Hopefully that's the message the world will take from it (likely to be the only leadership K.Rudd will ever be able to claim). It is time to bury gorebull warbling.

 

How about some useful development, ya dopey beggars! Europe development agencies to launch climate fund

A group of European development agencies will launch a joint climate change fund to promote low-carbon and sustainable investments in emerging countries, the agencies said on Thursday.

The European Investment Bank (EIB), France's Agence Francaise de Developpement (AFD) and 12 members of the European Development Finance Institutions (EDFI) will sign a memorandum of understanding to launch the Interact Climate Change Fund at a meeting in Bruges, Belgium on Friday.

The fund will create a portfolio of climate friendly private sector investments across countries in Africa, the Caribbean, Asia-Pacific and Latin America, the agencies said in a statement. (Reuters)

 

South African tourism minister favourite to replace Yvo de Boer

Marthinus van Schalkwyk tipped as likely successor as UN looks to developing country with rising influence in UN climate talks (Reuters)

 

Europe's Carbon Mafia, And Ours

Corruption: The carbon trading system being pushed here has spawned crime and fraud across the pond. Cap-and-trade is not about saving the planet. It's about money and power, and absolute power corrupting absolutely.

All across Europe authorities have been conducting raids, rounding up individuals involved in a new version of Climate-gate. This time the data aren't corrupted. Europe's Emissions Trading System is. The system is so sick, it's turned out to be a scam built upon a scam. (IBD)

 

Small investors could be big losers under federal climate change legislation

Small investors could be big losers if a greenhouse gas reduction plan known as cap and trade becomes law and accounting standards for carbon credits have not been established, according to a new study released today by a University of California, Davis, professor.

In an analysis of pending federal legislation and accounting practices, UC Davis management professor Paul Griffin determined that U.S. companies would receive up to $36 billion in climate change allowances next year under provisions of a bill the U.S. House of Representatives passed last year.

But their balance sheets would show only $7.5 billion in allowances using an accounting procedure set by a federal energy agency. Companies also could choose from one of several other established accounting standards, each of which would produce very different results, according to Griffin.

"There will be confusion," said Griffin, an accounting expert at the UC Davis Graduate School of Management. "The average public investor will be at a disadvantage relative to a professional investor like Goldman Sachs." (UC Davis)

 

Here's a nightmare scenario: Could CO2 be the green fuel powering tomorrow's cars?

Imagine a green fuel that could power our cars, keep the wheels of industry turning, and wean us off our addiction to oil - a fuel called CO2 (Duncan Graham-Rowe for Green Futures, part of the Guardian Environment Network)

Look what they envisage: "A fuel that could stop climate change in its tracks, and send carbon levels plunging to pre-industrial levels. A fuel that allows business as usual to carry on as before – emissions and all. Because that fuel is… CO2." God help us all!

Look you morons, atmospheric carbon dioxide is an environmental asset -- a resource nourishing the biosphere (that's wild critters and their habitat as well as us). We do not want to reduce its availability under any circumstance. What have you got against life anyway?

 

A Positive Human Influence on Global Climate? Robert Mendelsohn, Meet Gerald North!

by Robert Bradley Jr.
May 6, 2010

“[Robert] Mendelsohn’s position is rather similar to yours…. He believes the impacts are not negative at all for the US and most of the developed countries. Most impact studies seem to be showing this. It leads us to think that a little warming is not so bad. Glad I have kept my mouth shut on this issue of which I know so little.”

- Gerald North (Texas A&M) to Rob Bradley (Enron), November 12, 1999

“I agree that the case for 2C warming [for a doubling of manmade greenhouse gas forcing in equilibrium] is pretty strong.”

- Gerald R. North to Rob Bradley, email communication, August 13, 2007.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal published my letter-to-the-editor rebutting Kerry Emanuel’s letter, which, in turn, was critical of his fellow MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen’s op-ed, “Climate Science in Denial.”

My arguments opposing those of Professor Emanuel (see entire letter below) are fairly straightforward, but I end with this challenge:

“But when will many climate scientists, including Mr. Emanuel, face Climategate and the fact that the human influence on climate, on net, is as likely to be positive than negative?”

Is this challenge rash, or is it backed by the facts?  Well, let’s consider the views of an esteemed climate economist and an esteemed climate scientist. They are, respectively,

Robert O. Mendelsohn (Edwin Weyerhaeuser Davis Professor of Forest Policy; Professor of Economics; and Professor, School of Management)

Gerald R. North (Distinguished Professor, Physical Section, Department of Atmospheric Sciences and the
Department of Oceanography).

Dr. North’s long held sensitivity estimate of 2ºC for a doubling of atmospheric greenhouse concentrations is one-third below the “best guess” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (or the IPCC’s best guess is one-half greater than that of Dr. North). That is a big difference, and if you believe Mendelsohn et al. that a 2ºC for 2x results in net positive benefits for the world, then voila!

Is it radical to believe that the human influence on climate, on net, has more positives than negatives for many decades out and even beyond a century or more?  After all, the CO2 fertilization effect is a strong positive, and warmer and wetter is going in the right direction for the biopshere…

Perhaps CO2 as the green greenhouse gas is ‘closet’ mainstream, if North’s (private) views are considered. [Read more →] (MasterResource)

 

Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, May 6th 2010

UK voters head to the polls today to choose any new government they want, as long as it comes in green. The EPA does some Californication to farmers and the Guardian continues its countdown to the end of the world (you have about 6.5 years left, in case you were interested). (Daily Bayonet)

 

Name-calling fairy dust: “Conspiracy Theorist”

Ad hominem Unleashed on the ABC

On our ABC there’s lots of talk “about evidence” but next to nothing of actual evidence. (The empty homage to “evidence” is handy though, it keeps the pretense alive that it’s a scientific conversation). Stefan Lewandowsky is still doing his Picasso-brain-best to search in all the wrong places for enlightenment.

Is the planet warming from man-made CO2? Lewandowsky “knows” it is. Why? Because the 9/11 truthers are conspiracy theorists (and conspiracies are always wrong). O’ look, a few people ask odd questions about an accident in a building years ago, and sometimes those people are also the species Homo Sapiens Climata Scepticus (!). So it follows (if you are insane) that because some people still doubt the official story of an unrelated past event, man-made global warming will contribute 3.7W/m² in the year 2079, and we’ll all become souffles in the global Sahara.

I’m not making this stuff up. I’ve tallied up the obvious errors from both articles. His power to confuse himself with red herrings is …  “impressive”.

Lewandowsky scorecard for logic and reason

Argument from authority                   4

Baseless Assertion                                    3

Unsubstantiated Name-calling          1

Ad hominem                                                 2

Red Herring                                                  6

Total                                                              – 16

Lewandowsky uses his Magic Fairy Debating Dust to preemptively stop discussions of climate science evidence.  If anyone complains against any mainstream position on anything, he can define whatever it is as  a “conspiracy theory”. Then his omnipotent powers as a cognitive scientist kick in. I quote: “The nature of conspiracy theories and their ultimate fate is reasonably well understood by cognitive scientists”. He who knows can foresee the ultimate fate of all conspiracy theories. A handy talent which could save us doing expensive Royal Commissions, or Supreme Courts, or heck, we could just use this talent to save us the bother of any courts or commissions or investigations at all.

So God and Lewandowsky, apparently, can always tell the difference between a whistle-blower and conspiracy theorist. (Too bad some conspiracies have turned out to be right. And who cares if a lot of skeptics don’t think it’s a conspiracy in any case). Lewandowsky uses  the name-calling to “poison the well” against people who don’t even believe in a conspiracy, but happen to also be skeptical… More » (Jo Nova)

 

Curious... British summertime arriving early

It might not feel like it, but summer in Britain now arrives 18 days earlier than half a century ago, according to a new study. (TDT)

... does this include or is it in addition to "In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually."? (The Cooling World, Newsweek, April 28, 1975)

 

U.S. NOAA says chance of La Nina hitting in 2010

A La Nina weather phenomenon, the lesser-known cousin of the more famous El Nino weather anomaly, will most likely develop in the second half of 2010, the U.S. Climate Prediction Center said Thursday.

La Nina will come hard on the heels of an El Nino blamed for excessive rains in Brazil and the worst drought in 37 years in India. That raises the distinct possibility of more storms developing during the Atlantic Hurricane season which begins on June 1.

CPC, a unit of the U.S. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, said a large number of computer models indicates "the onset of La Nina conditions."

CPC said that many computer models have shown an increased tendency for cooler sea surface readings.

This, in addition "to various oceanic and atmospheric indicators, indicate a growing possibility of La Nina developing during the second half of 2010." (Reuters)

 

Hotness is in the eye of the beholder

I’ve mentioned before how chosen color schemes greatly influence how people see surface temperature data. Frank points out that sea surface temperature presentations suffer from the same problem. – Anthony

Guest post by Frank Lansner

This is no news – but still needs to be told. NOAA can in many contexts come up with the hottest temperatures available. Here we take a look at the European Sea Surface Temperatures as of 3 may 2010.

NOAA vs. UNISYS, SST, Europe. When I look at this compare, again and again I have to check if these SST are from the very same date, 3 may 2010. But they are. Differences are immense to an extend where it hardly makes sense to look after the European SST?
NOAA is hotter than UNISYS in for example these waters: Continue reading → (WUWT)

 

Still starting from a flawed premise: Ancient leaves help researchers understand future climate

Potential climate change caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide might be better understood by examining fossil plant remains from millions of years ago, according to biogeochemists. The types of carbon within the leaves can serve as a window into past temperatures and environmental conditions.

"Carbon isotopes are really important for understanding the carbon cycle of the past, and we care about the carbon cycle of the past because it gives us clues about future climate change," said Aaron Diefendorf, graduate student in geosciences at Penn State.

Carbon naturally occurs in two non-radioactive isotopes -- different forms of the same element -- carbon 12 and carbon 13. Plants absorb carbon from the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. The ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 13 within a plant mirrors the ratio in the atmosphere, which varies with changes in the carbon cycle -- the cycling of the element carbon through plants and animals, the ocean, the atmosphere and Earth's crust.

Clues about how the environment responded to global warming events millions of years ago can be found in carbon isotope ratios from ancient fossil leaves, sediments and pollen. However, environmental conditions also impact leaf carbon isotope ratios, a complexity that Diefendorf and Kevin Mueller, graduate student in ecology, Penn State, set out to resolve with their study. (Penn State)

They're sticking with the faddish modern assumption atmospheric carbon dioxide drives rather than responds to temperature. We have no evidence that that is true or even possible.

 

Hyperventilating on Venus

By Steve Goddard

The classic cure for hyperventilation is to put a paper bag over your head, which increases your CO2 levels and reduces the amount of Oxygen in your bloodstream. Global warmers have been hyperventilating over CO2 on Venus, ever since Carl Sagan made popular the idea of a runaway greenhouse effect. That was when he wasn’t warning about nuclear winter.

Sagan said that marijuana helped him write some of his books.

I bought off on the “runaway greenhouse” idea on Venus for several decades (without smoking pot) and only very recently have come to understand that the theory is beyond absurd.  I explain below. Continue reading → (WUWT)

They're right, as we've told you before.

 

Advocacy By Veerabhadran Ramanathan and Yangyang Xu In The PNAS In An Article In The Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Science

Dick Lindzen has succinctly summarized how climate science has deteriorated into a tool for political action.  As I reported in my post

Comments On Numerical Modeling As The New Climate Science Paradigm

Dick has written

“In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special advantage.”

Today I present a clear example of the use of the National Academy of Sciences [as represented by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences- PNAS] to promote a particular set of policy actions, where climate science, as percieved by the authors of the PNAS, is used as the reasoning.

The article is

Ramanathan, Veerabhadran and Yangyang Xu, 2010: The Copenhagen Accord for limiting global warming: Criteria, constraints, and available avenues. PNAS. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1002293107

The abstract reads

“At last, all the major emitters of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have agreed under the Copenhagen Accord that global average temperature increase should be kept below 2 °C. This study develops the criteria for limiting the warming below 2 °C, identifies the constraints imposed on policy makers, and explores available mitigation avenues. One important criterion is that the radiant energy added by human activities should not exceed 2.5 (range: 1.7–4) watts per square meter (Wm−2) of the Earth’s surface. The blanket of man-made GHGs has already added 3 (range: 2.6–3.5) Wm−2. Even if GHG emissions peak in 2015, the radiant energy barrier will be exceeded by 100%, requiring simultaneous pursuit of three avenues: (i) reduce the rate of thickening of the blanket by stabilizing CO2 concentration below 441 ppm during this century (a massive decarbonization of the energy sector is necessary to accomplish this Herculean task), (ii) ensure that air pollution laws that reduce the masking effect of cooling aerosols be made radiant energy-neutral by reductions in black carbon and ozone, and (iii) thin the blanket by reducing emissions of short-lived GHGs. Methane and hydrofluorocarbons emerge as the prime targets. These actions, even if we are restricted to available technologies for avenues ii and iii, can reduce the probability of exceeding the 2 °C barrier before 2050 to less than 10%, and before 2100 to less than 50%. With such actions, the four decades we have until 2050 should be exploited to develop and scale-up revolutionary technologies to restrict the warming to less than 1.5 °C.”

The text in the abstract highlights the advocacy nature of this article; i.e.

“This study……… identifies the constraints imposed on policy makers”

The authors present the problem with the climate system as a result of the human emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and then discusses the “Policy Makers’ Dilemma”.  

The next section in the paper, titled “Challenges for Policy Makers”,  further illustrates that the two authors recommend policy. This section reads in part

The planet is very likely to experience warming in excess of 2 °C if policy makers stringently enforce existing air pollution laws and remove reflecting aerosols without concomitant actions for thinning the GHG blanket…”

I have posted on this recommendation by Dr. Ramanthan in the past and conclude that ANY attempt not to enforce existing air pollution laws is a serious mistake with respect to human health; e.g.

Misconception And Oversimplification Of the Concept Of Global Warming By V. Ramanthan and Y. Feng

Health Benefits Of Air Quality Control Should Never Be Sacrificed By Delaying The Clean-Up Of Aerosol Emissions For Climate Reasons

However, regardless of the merits of the policy recommendations of Ramanathan and Xu, 2010, the National Academy of Sciences publication is being used to lobby for a particular set of policy actions, which they justify by their presentation of the climate science issue.  Since Dr. Ramanthan is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, he is able to straightforwardly publish in this journal.

Readers of my weblog can decide for themselves if this is the proper use of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.  However, it is clear that advocacy is being framed using climate science, as the authors perceive it, as the justification for their policy prescriptions.

The confirmation of Dick Lindzen’s issues with respect to the lack of scientific objectivity also is evident in the news release on the Ramanathan and  Xu,2010 paper. The news release by Brian Moore of Scripps is titled

Scripps researchers outline strategy to limit global warming

and has the text

“The ‘low-hanging fruits’ approach to one of mankind’s great challenges is very appealing because it is a win-win approach,” said Jay Fein, program director in NSF’s Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, which funds much of Ramanathan’s research. “It cleans up the environment, protects human health and helps to sustain the 2-degree C threshold.”

Thus, as Dick Lindzen wrote

 ”….we have the new paradigm where ….. government largely determines the nature of scientific activity.”

Clearly, NSF itself has become an advocate for particular policy actions. I will have more examples of how the NSF is limiting research in upcoming posts on my weblog. (Roger Pielke Sr, Climate Science)

 

Deep trouble: America’s distorted energy markets, not just its coastline, need cleaning up

THE explosion that claimed 11 lives and sent the Deepwater Horizon, a billion-dollar oil rig, to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, was bad enough. But for the inhabitants of America’s Gulf coast, for BP, the huge British firm that owns the well, and for the oil industry as a whole, the bad news is flowing as relentlessly as the oil gushing from ruptured pipes a mile below the waves (see article). Efforts to close an emergency shut-off valve have failed. BP is trying to drop huge domes over the leaks and siphon off the oil they collect. But if that fails, it could be months before a second well is completed, reducing the pressure in the first and thus stemming the flow. (The Economist)

Black storm rising: The Deepwater Horizon disaster will affect everyone from pelicans to politicians

DRILLING for oil is a balancing act. If the pressure of the working fluids in the well, or the strength of concrete holding the piping in place, cannot balance the immense pressure of the oil down below, then things get very bad, very quickly. On April 20th, for some reason as yet unknown, the pressure in a well that had been drilled by the Deepwater Horizon, a rig that BP, one of the world’s largest oil companies, was using to explore a new field in the Gulf of Mexico, got out of balance. The well blew its top, causing an explosion and subsequent fire which claimed the lives of 11 of the rig’s crew of 126 and eventually sent the rig itself to the bottom of the ocean, a mile below the surface and some 40 miles (64km) off the Louisiana coast. (The Economist)

The politics of disaster: Barack Obama has had a good spill so far. But his energy policy is now a mess

WHEN the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989 and dumped its oily cargo into Alaskan waters, it killed hordes of beautiful creatures and cost billions to clean up. The current spill in the Gulf of Mexico could prove even worse. A tanker can leak its load, but no more. A broken pipe connected to an oilfield may continue leaking until it is fixed. And since fixing it involves sending remote-controlled submarines a mile below the surface to tinker with mangled machinery in the dark, that could take a while. Small wonder that Barack Obama sounds so grave. (The Economist)

In the black stuff: Tony Hayward is almost as unloved as the boss of Goldman Sachs; he is still the right man to lead BP out of the slick

BARACK OBAMA’S administration has promised to keep its boot firmly applied to BP’s neck. Many people would be happier if the boot were a blade. Fishermen who worry that their livelihoods are in peril; shareholders who have seen the value of BP’s shares plunge; local Democratic politicians who want to make sure they cannot be blamed for reacting too slowly: the list of boot-and-blade wielders is growing longer by the day. (The Economist)

 

In Gulf of Mexico, Chemicals Under Scrutiny

As they struggle to plug a leak from a ruptured oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, BP and federal officials are also engaging in one of the largest and most aggressive experiments with chemical dispersants in the history of the country, and perhaps the world.

With oil continuing to gush from the deep well, they have sprayed 160,000 gallons of chemical dispersant on the water’s surface and pumped an additional 6,000 gallons directly onto the leak, a mile beneath the surface.

John Curry, director of external affairs at BP, said the company was encouraged by the results so far. But some environmental groups are deeply nervous. (NYT)

 

The Bear Growls a Bit More Softly Now: New Adventures in Pipelinestan

by Donald Hertzmark
May 7, 2010

In the wake of the BP well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico and the attempted terrorist bombing of New York’s Times Square, the broadcast media have been full of the sackcloth and ashes crowd pronouncing once more the end of the hydrocarbon era and the vital need for the U.S. to “break our oil addiction” ASAP.

Their soundbites start with a half-truth and end with a fallacy.  We are told that “60 percent of U.S. energy supplies still come from oil and gas,” with the implication that (i) all of that is imported; and (ii) the pittance that we produce domestically all comes from offshore facilities.

 It is true that 60 percent (actually 62.5%) of our energy comes from oil and gas.  But the portion that comes from natural gas, about 24% of total U.S. energy supply, is 85 percent domestically sourced.  With oil and liquids, about 45% is domestically sourced.  Sure, we use a lot of oil and gas, and most of it, more than 60%, comes from the U.S.  More than two-thirds of that domestic production comes from onshore production facilities.

The fallacious recommendation that emanates from the incomplete data is that the U.S. has no chance to remain a viable society and economy if we continue to rely on all this foreign (onshore, Alaska, ethanol, Saudi Arabia, Russia, what’s the difference?) and offshore supply.  “Therefore, we have no alternative but to turn to  .   .   .   wind, solar, biomass?”  The agenda pushers never want to let a good crisis go to waste.  But very quietly, mostly out of sight of the energy policy crowd in Washington, we have seen the emergence of major new sources of domestic energy production – natural gas from coalbeds and shale formations.  So great has been the rise in domestic gas production that it has weakened gas prices worldwide, benefitting users in homes and industry.

Moreover, the US example is setting off emulation in Australia, Canada and China, as well as Europe, promising still further major gas production increases.  Without this production the major conventional gas powers – Russia, Qatar, Algeria, Iran, Libya, Nigeria – would be able to garner ever-increasing market share, and with that monopoly rents and political power. [Read more →] (MasterResource)

 

BP's U.S. Gulf project exempted from enviro analysis

U.S. regulators exempted BP Plc from a detailed environmental review of the exploration project that ultimately resulted in the deadly Gulf of Mexico explosion and subsequent oil spill, documents show.

The Minerals Management Service granted BP's project a "categorical exclusion" from full environmental analysis normally required under the National Environmental Policy Act, according to documents made available by the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group.

BP had argued in a letter to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a White House agency, last month that the use of the exclusion for projects did not mean environmental impacts were being ignored, only that an agency agrees they are deemed to be minimal or nonexistent.

The MMS, the branch of the U.S. Interior Department that is responsible for managing oil, gas and other resources on the outer continental shelf, approved the exploration project on April 6, 2009.

The exclusion puts pressure on President Barack Obama's administration to show it could not have done more to prevent what may become the most damaging oil spill in U.S. history. (Reuters)

 

UK regulator warned Transocean on blow-out valves

Britain's safety regulator criticized Transocean in 2005 and 2006 over blowout prevention equipment which did the same job as the gear which failed two weeks ago and caused a huge oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) issued Transocean with an improvement notice in 2006, criticizing the testing of a so-called blow out preventer (BOP).

"The multi-purpose tool used in blow-out preventer pressure testing was not so constructed as to be suitable for the purpose for which it was provided: and failed in service, exposing persons to risks that endangered their safety," the regulator said in a notice in June 2006.

A year earlier, the HSE issued an improvement notice criticizing the condition of the equipment used to operate the BOP on another Semi Submersible Mobile Drilling rig, which a BP spokesman said was on contract to the London-based oil major.

The regulator's 2005 warning said Transocean had failed to ensure that a remote BOP control panel had been properly maintained.

The notices are available on the regulator's website but the regulator was unable to immediately give further details on the matters on Thursday. On April 20, the Deepwater Horizon, a semi-submersible drilling rig owned and operated by Transocean and contracted to drill a well for BP, exploded and caught fire.

The companies believe a BOP failed to operate properly when the well hit a pocket of high pressure, causing the explosion. (Reuters)

 

Gulf spill makes oilsands more appealing

WASHINGTON — The safety benefits of importing Canadian oil by pipeline should be a consideration in formulating United States energy policy in the wake of the BP oil spill currently polluting the Gulf of Mexico, a senior State Department official said Thursday.

"It's certainly true that oil that comes by pipeline has far less potential to cause economic damage of that scale because if the pipes are properly constructed, there is an ability to shut them off if there is an explosion or leakage," David Goldwyn, a senior State Department adviser for international energy issues, told a summit on North American energy security. (Sheldon Alberts, Canwest News Service)

 

Brazil seeks offshore oil safety review on BP spill

Brazil will ask oil companies operating its offshore fields to provide information on well control systems and to review their emergency response protocols in the wake of the BP Gulf of Mexico spill, the ANP energy regulator said late Wednesday.

The vast majority of the roughly 2 million barrels per day that state oil company Petrobras produces in Brazil come from offshore fields, and most of the country's future output growth is seen coming from ultra-deep water fields.

The ANP said in a statement it had decided to "send information requests to all the concession-holders that operate in Brazilian waters seeking information on well control systems for offshore drilling."

It will also "ask concession-holders to reevaluate their emergency plans and send documentation to the (ANP) about their respective response capacity." (Reuters)

 

Drill, Baby, Still

Energy: After BP's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, federal and state governments moved quickly to shelve plans to drill off the U.S. coast. But a new poll taken after the spill suggests Americans still support drilling.

Preliminary results of an IBD/TIPP Poll of 795 U.S. adults, taken from April 30 to May 5, show that a large majority — 59% — approve of "oil exploration and drilling in America's national territorial waters." Just 31% said they disapprove.

Interestingly, the share who approve of offshore drilling has fallen only a bit since the last time we polled Americans on this topic in July 2008. Back then, 64% supported offshore drilling — while 25% disapproved — for a swing of just five percentage points.

Why do people still support drilling? The oil spill notwithstanding, Americans are tired of $85 a barrel oil and understand that the panaceas for our energy ills peddled by the green movement and the left — wind, solar, biomass — are still years off, if ever, from being economically viable.

The cold reality is we need oil. A retreat from drilling would be economically unwise. BP's mess must be put into perspective. (IBD)

 

China’s Gassy Future

Today, few countries are as honest about their energy present and future as China. While American pundits and politicians have been praising China’s solar and wind forays, Han Xiaoping, an energy expert from the China Energy Net, said that “the so-called ‘new energy’ such as wind power and solar energy can never support China’s civilization process.” [Read More] (Michael Economides and Xina Xie, Energy Tribune)

 

Methane hydrate: a future clean energy source?

This strange substance could provide vast quantities of natural gas; no surface targets, where warming could release methane into atmosphere

Methane hydrate, sometimes referred to as ice that burns, is a strange lemon-sorbet-looking material that exists naturally in huge quantities in a number of places around the world, and locks up vast quantities of methane, the primary component of natural gas. Scientists have estimated that there may be somewhere in excess of 1,000 billion tons of methane hydrate in existence worldwide, a figure thought comparable to the total remaining amount of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and more conventional forms of natural gas. 

One of a class of substances referred to by the somewhat arcane scientific name of “clathrates,” methane hydrate consists of methane (which is a gas at normal temperatures and pressures) trapped in a solid lattice of water molecules, somewhat like ice. The material is only stable within a certain range of pressures and temperatures—shift the temperature or pressure outside that stability range and methane hydrate will break down, releasing a volume of methane gas amounting to about 164 times the volume of the original hydrate. 

The sensitivity of the material to pressure and temperature means that naturally occurring methane hydrate tends to exist only in certain specific situations, such as in cold sediments under the coastal margins of the world’s oceans, or deep under the frozen tundra of Arctic lands. Essentially, the hydrates have formed where methane bubbling from the decomposition of buried organic material has become trapped in wet sediments, where the pressures and temperatures are conducive to hydrate formation. (GoO)

 

Renewable Energy: Free as the Wind?

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources met this morning and, among other things, discussed a national renewable electricity standard (RES). The RES, which mandates that a certain percentage of our nation’s electricity production come from wind, solar, biomass and other renewable energies, already passed out of committee but is likely to be a part of any energy agenda this year. A new Heritage Foundation study analyzing the costs of an RES finds that a national mandate for pricier, less reliable electricity would be harmful to American families, American businesses and the American economy.

The Heritage analysis models the effects of an RES that starts at 3 percent for 2012 and rises by 1.5 percent per year. This profile mandates a minimum of 15 percent renewable electricity by 2020, a minimum of 22.5 percent by 2025, and a minimum of 37.5 percent by 2035. It looks solely at onshore wind, which is currently the cheapest renewable energy source that can be scaled in significant fashion. While some studies have attempted to model the economic effects of an RES and found only marginal price increases, they fail to take into account the true cost of renewable sources. Wind is not dependable, it cannot be stored and it must be built in geographically disadvantageous locations that require significant new build for transmission lines. A detailed analysis of this can be found in the study. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis projects that an RES would: Continue reading... (The Foundry)

 

Germany approves solar power incentive cuts

Germany's Bundestag lower house of parliament approved on Thursday controversial cuts for solar power incentives to take effect from July.

Solar subsidies for rooftop installed solar power will see a one-off cut of 16 percent, while most open-field installations will be cut by 15 percent. Support for farmland solar systems is to be scrapped completely from July. (Reuters)

 

Jump to site menu or to General News & Views