If Barack Obama were to marshal America’s vast scientific and strategic resources behind a new Manhattan Project, he might reasonably hope to reinvent the global energy landscape and sketch an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years.
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
We could then stop arguing about wind mills, deepwater drilling, IPCC hockey sticks, or strategic reliance on the Kremlin. History will move on fast.
Muddling on with the status quo is not a grown-up policy. The International Energy Agency says the world must invest $26 trillion (£16.7 trillion) over the next 20 years to avert an energy shock. The scramble for scarce fuel is already leading to friction between China, India, and the West.
There is no certain bet in nuclear physics but work by Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) on the use of thorium as a cheap, clean and safe alternative to uranium in reactors may be the magic bullet we have all been hoping for, though we have barely begun to crack the potential of solar power.
Dr Rubbia says a tonne of the silvery metal – named after the Norse god of thunder, who also gave us Thor’s day or Thursday – produces as much energy as 200 tonnes of uranium, or 3,500,000 tonnes of coal. A mere fistful would light London for a week.
The last major GE factory making ordinary incandescent light bulbs in the United States is closing this month, marking a small, sad exit for a product and company that can trace their roots to Thomas Alva Edison’s innovations in the 1870s.The remaining 200 workers at the plant here will lose their jobs.
“Now what’re we going to do?” said Toby Savolainen, 49, who like many others worked for decades at the factory, making bulbs now deemed wasteful.
During the recession, political and business leaders have held out the promise that American advances, particularly in green technology, might stem the decades-long decline in U.S. manufacturing jobs. But as the lighting industry shows, even when the government pushes companies toward environmental innovations and Americans come up with them, the manufacture of the next generation technology can still end up overseas.
What made the plant here vulnerable is, in part, a 2007 energy conservation measure passed by Congress that set standards essentially banning ordinary incandescents by 2014. The law will force millions of American households to switch to more efficient bulbs.
The Nunavut government does not think the polar bear should be classified as a species of special concern under the federal Species at Risk Act, says territorial Environment Minister Daniel Shewchuk.
Shewchuk said there is no clear evidence to support assigning that status to the polar bear despite recommendations to the contrary by Environment Canada and a federal scientific panel.
“We live in polar bear country,” Shewchuk told reporters in Iqaluit on Friday afternoon. “We understand the polar bears, and we do actually think our polar bear population is very very healthy, with the exception of a couple of populations that we are taking action on.”
The polar bear was most recently designated a species of special concern in 2002. “Of special concern” is the least serious “at risk” designation – one level below “threatened” and two levels below “endangered.”
Currently, the special-concern designation has been suspended while the government reviews the polar bear’s status and decides whether to renew the classification or change it.
An arm’s length scientific panel, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), reviewed the polar bear’s status in 2008 and recommended that it remain in the special-concern category.
Change of Position
The recommendation has initiated a long process of hearings and consultations, including a round of hearings in Nunavut in April.
Environment Canada is expected to decide in a couple of months whether to renew the special concern status.
Shewchuk said while the Nunavut government originally agreed with the special-concern listing, it changed its position after consulting with Inuit hunters and others on a recent community tour.
“Through direct consultation, they are unanimous in their belief that polar bears have not declined,” Shewchuk said.
Oops! There go another two bricks, tumbling out of the IPCC wall of deceit on man-made global warming – there is not a lot left now; even the Berlin Wall (to which the AGW construct is ideologically allied) has survived better. Unhappily for Al, Phil, Michael, George and the rest of the scare-mongers, these two discredited components are among the most totemic in the AGW religion.Firstly, a new study, funded by Nasa (which may be feeling the need to rehabilitate itself post-Climategate) has revealed that the ridiculous claim in the notorious IPCC 2007 report that up to 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest could be drastically affected by even a small reduction in rainfall caused by climate change, so that the trees would be replaced by tropical grassland, is utter nonsense. That assertion has already been exposed as derived from a single report by the environmentalist lobby group WWF.
Now Dr Jose Marengo, a climate scientist with the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research and himself a member of the IPCC, says: “The way the WWF report calculated this 40 per cent was totally wrong, while (the new) calculations are by far more reliable and correct.” These calculations were done by researchers at Boston University and were published in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters. They used satellite data to study the drought of 2005, when rainfall fell to the lowest in living memory, and found that the rainforest suffered no significant effects.
Fresh from the fiasco in Copenhagen and with a failure in the U.S. Senate looming this coming year, the climate-change lobby is already shifting to Plan B, or is it already Plan D? Meet the carbon tort.
Across the country, trial lawyers and green pressure groups – if that’s not redundant – are teaming up to sue electric utilities for carbon emissions under “nuisance” laws.
A group of 12 Gulf Coast residents whose homes were damaged by Katrina are suing 33 energy companies for greenhouse gas emissions that allegedly contributed to the global warming that allegedly made the hurricane worse. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and seven state AG allies plus New York City are suing American Electric Power and other utilities for a host of supposed eco-maladies. A native village in Alaska is suing Exxon and 23 oil and energy companies for coastal erosion.
What unites these cases is the creativity of their legal chain of causation and their naked attempts at political intimidation. “My hope is that the court case will provide a powerful incentive for polluters to be reasonable and come to the table and seek affordable and reasonable reductions,” Mr. Blumenthal told the trade publication Carbon Control News. “We’re trying to compel measures that will stem global warming regardless of what happens in the legislature.”
Mull over that one for a moment. Mr. Blumenthal isn’t suing to right a wrong. He admits that he’s suing to coerce a change in policy no matter what the public’s elected representatives choose.
Cap and trade or a global treaty like the one that collapsed in Copenhagen would be destructive – but at least either would need the assent of a politically accountable Congress. The Obama Administration’s antidemocratic decision to impose carbon regulation via the Environmental Protection Agency would be even more destructive – but at least it would be grounded in an existing law, the 1977 Clean Air Act, however misinterpreted. The nuisance suits ask the courts to make such fundamentally political decisions themselves, with judges substituting their views for those of the elected branches.
It is now widely recognised that the misguided Copenhagen Conference was a complete failure. Those political leaders and policy makers who refuse to accept this reality are merely burying their heads in the sand and are forfeiting the trust of the public.
–The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 20 December 2009
Â
The world’s political leaders, not least President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, are in a state of severe, almost clinical, denial. They insist that what has been achieved in Copenhagen is a breakthrough and a decisive step forward. Just one more heave, just one more venue for the great climate-change traveling circus – Mexico City next year – and the job will be done. Or so we are told. It is, of course, the purest nonsense. The time has come to abandon the Kyoto-style folly that reached its apotheosis in Copenhagen last week, and move to plan B.
–Nigel Lawson, The Wall Street Journal, 22 December 2009
Â
The biggest losers of the Copenhagen fiasco appear to be climate science and the scientific establishment who, with a very few distinguished exceptions, have promoted unmitigated climate alarm and hysteria. It confirms beyond doubt that most governments have lost trust in the advice given by climate alarmists and the IPCC. The Copenhagen accord symbolises the loss of political power by Europe whose climate policies have been rendered obsolete.
–Benny Peiser, The Observer, 20 December 2009
Â
India hailed Tuesday the lack of targets and legally binding measures in the Copenhagen climate accord and vaunted the united front presented by major emerging countries at the chaotic talks. Facing parliament for the first time since the UN talks last weekend in the Danish capital, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said India had “come out quite well in Copenhagen”. The Copenhagen accord “bears in mind that the social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries,” Ramesh said.
By Lord Christopher Monckton — The mountains shall labor, and what will be born? A stupid little mouse. Thanks to hundreds of thousands of US citizens who contacted their elected representatives to protest about the unelected, communistic world government with near-infinite powers of taxation, regulation and intervention that was proposed in early drafts of the Copenhagen Treaty, there is no Copenhagen Treaty. There is not even a Copenhagen Agreement. There is a “Copenhagen Accordâ€.
The White House spinmeisters spun, and their official press release proclaimed, with more than usual fatuity, that President Obama had “salvaged†a deal at Copenhagen in bilateral talks with China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, which had established a negotiating bloc.
The plainly-declared common position of these four developing nations had been the one beacon of clarity and common sense at the foggy fortnight of posturing and gibbering in the ghastly Copenhagen conference center.
This is what the Forthright Four asked for:Â
Point 1. No compulsory limits on carbon emissions.
Point 2. No emissions reductions at all unless the West paid for them.
Point 3. No international monitoring of any emissions reductions not paid for by the West.
Point 4. No use of “global warming†as an excuse to impose protectionist trade restrictions on countries that did not cut their carbon emissions.
After President Obama’s dramatic intervention to save the deal, this is what the Forthright Four got:
Point 1. No compulsory limits on carbon emissions.
Point 2. No emissions reductions at all unless the West paid for them.
Point 3. No international monitoring of any emissions reductions not paid for by the West.
Point 4. No use of “global warming†as an excuse to impose protectionist trade restrictions on countries that did not cut their carbon emissions.
Here, in a nutshell – for fortunately nothing larger is needed – are the main points of the â€Copenhagen Accordâ€:Â
Main points: In the Copenhagen Accord, which is operational immediately, the parties“underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our timeâ€; emphasize their “strong political will to urgently combat climate changeâ€; recognize “the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 C°†and perhaps below 1.5 C°; aspire to “cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possibleâ€; acknowledge that eradicating poverty is the “overriding priority of developing countriesâ€; and accept the need to help vulnerable countries – especially the least developed nations, small-island states, and Africa – to adapt to climate change.
Self-imposed emissions targets: All parties will set for themselves, and comply with, emissions targets for 2020, to be submitted to the secretariat by 31 January 2010. Where developing countries are paid to cut their emissions, their compliance will be monitored. Developed countries will financially support less-developed countries to prevent deforestation. Carbon trading may be used.
New bureaucracies and funding: Under the supervision of a “High-Level Panelâ€, developed countries will give up to $30 billion for 2010-12, aiming for $100 billion by 2020, in “scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding†to developing countries via a “Copenhagen Green Fundâ€. A “Technology Mechanism†will “accelerate technology development and transfer†to developing countries.
And that’s it. Expensive, yes. Unnecessary, yes. But earth-shaking? No.
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of America
8 December 2009
Dear Secretary-General,
Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ – the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.
Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.
We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.
Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:
1.Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
2.Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
3.Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
4.Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
5.The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
6.Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
7.Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
8.Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
9.Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
10.Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.
It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.
Signed by:
1.Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Dr. Sci., mathematician and astrophysicist, Head of the Russian-Ukrainian Astrometria project on the board of the Russian segment of the ISS, Head of Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia
2.Göran Ahlgren, docent organisk kemi, general secretary of the Stockholm Initiative, Professor of Organic Chemistry, Stockholm, Sweden
3.Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
4.J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000, Pretoria, South Africa.
5.Jock Allison, PhD, ONZM, formerly Ministry of Agriculture Regional Research Director, Dunedin, New Zealand
A professor who is accusing global warming skeptics of engaging in tabloid-style character assassination of scientists, called an American climate skeptic “an assh*le†on the December 4, 2009 live broadcast of BBC’s Newsnight program. “What an assh*le!†declared Professor Watson at the end of the contentious debate with Climate Depot’s executive editor Marc Morano. A clearly agitated Watson had earlier shouted to Morano “will you shut up.†Video of BBC “Asshole†clip is here.
Full one-on-one BBC debate segment between Prof. Watson and Climate Depot’s Morano is in two parts here. The remark was broadcast live on BBC and prompted an on-air apology to viewers from the BBC later in the program for the offensive language. Watson (Email: a.watson@uea.ac.uk) professor at the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, which was the source of the disclosed files. Watson’s emails appear in the hacked Climategate files.
Democrats are deeply divided on climate change legislation, and Republicans boycotted the hearings this week, which leaves little hope for passage of legislation this year.Â
The Senate Environment Committee held three days of hearings on the climate bill last week -Â it goes to committee debate today. Â
Democrats from the Midwest, South and Rocky Mountain West are concerned about the impact of the legislation on industry and consumersÂ
Democratic leaders, along with the Obama administration, are attempting to persuade at least six Republicans to vote in favor by compromising on nuclear plants. So far, not one Republican seems interested.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) says she will begin the mark up on climate legislation regardless of the fact that all 7 Republicans on the Committee plan to boycott the proceedings.
Republicans say Boxer can’t do a markup without at least two Republicans present. Boxer countered that a provision would allow her to proceed as long as a majority of committee members are present. Democrats outnumber Republicans 12 to 7.
“We urge Ranking Member Inhofe, with the utmost respect, to bring the committee Republicans back to work on this issue. We will give them the opportunity, as we proceed this week, to reconsider their decision,” she added. “We look forward to working with them if they decide to participate, but if they do not, we will move forward in accordance with the rules of the Senate and of this committee.”
On Monday afternoon, all six ranking Republicans on committees with jurisdiction over climate change legislation sent a letter to Boxer (PDF) asking her to delay consideration of the bill until a full economic analysis is performed. Two of the GOP senators Democrats have been eyeing as possible backers of a cap-and-trade bill — Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Richard Lugar (Ind.) both signed the missive, which states, these sort of “analyses are worth the time and resources not only to get them done, but to get them done right.”
“The EPW Republicans would like a markup of the Kerry-Boxer bill, but are disappointed that the majority seems intent on moving forward with a markup before receiving a full analysis from the EPA,” he said. “Given the sheer size and significant economic impacts of the bill on the American people, we feel it is our duty to insist on having the analysis before members are to vote on the bill.”
This rather amusing video was produced by a project of Greenpeace. While we agree with their assertion that carbon credits are a bad idea, we strongly disagree with their “solution.” Rather than carbon credits, Greenpeace seeks draconian and unrealistic cuts in carbon emissions that would cast the civilized world into a preindustrial state, all over unproven and hotly contested anthropogenic global warming theories.
GlobalClimateScam.com doesn’t support either idea.
Polling data reveals Americans are growing increasingly skeptical about man-made global warming fears and claims. Voters are rejecting so-called “solutions” like cap-and-trade as well. Below is a small sampling of recent polling data on global warming.
1) Gallup survey found global warming ranked dead last in the U.S. among ENVIRONMENTAL issues – 8th out of 8 Env. Issues – March 2009 – Excerpt: (Air and water pollution, toxic waste, animal and plant extinction and loss of tropical rainforests, all ranked as greater concerns than global warming.) “Since more Americans express little to no worry about global warming than say this about extinction, global warming is clearly the environmental issue of least concern to them. In fact, global warming is the only issue for which more Americans say they have little to no concern than say they have a great deal of concern.”
2) Gallup Poll Editor: Gore has ‘Failed’ — ‘The public is just not that concerned’ about global warming – May 5, 2009 – Excerpt: Gallup Poll Editor Frank Newport says he sees no evidence that Al Gore’s campaign against global warming is winning. “It’s just not caught on,” says Newport. “They have failed.” Or, more bluntly: “Any measure that we look at shows Al Gore’s losing at the moment. The public is just not that concerned.” [...] Ask people to name their biggest concerns, and just 1 percent to 2 percent cite the environment. “The environment doesn’t show up at all,” says Newport. “It’s Al Gore’s greatest frustration,” says Newport. “We seem less concerned than more about global warming over the years…Despite the movies and publicity and all that, we’re just not seeing it take off with the American public. And that was occurring even before the latest economic recession.” He adds: “As Al Gore I think would say, the greatest challenge facing humanity . . . has failed to show up in our data.”
4) Gallup Poll: ‘Record-High 41% of Americans Now Say Global Warming is Exaggerated’ – March 11, 2009 – Excerpt: This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject. [...] Now, according to Gallup’s 2009 Environment survey, more Americans say the problem is exaggerated rather than underestimated, 41% vs. 28%. [...] The 2009 Gallup Environment survey measured public concern about eight specific environmental issues. Not only does global warming rank last on the basis of the total percentage concerned either a great deal or a fair amount, but it is the only issue for which public concern dropped significantly in the past year. [...] It is the first time since 1997 that the rate of concern has not increased.
This week, as Governor Pawlenty was making his historic announcement, I was part of a delegation of Minnesotans attending the Third International Conference on Climate Change, sponsored by the Heartland Institute. This is the third conference in little over a year to draw attention to the widespread and growing dissent over the alleged “consensus” on “Global Warming” or “Climate Change.”
The conference coincided with the release of “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.” The report thoroughly documents the challenges to the global warming thesis, from problems with the models, to faulty temperature record observations and other data and with competing theories about the biology and physics of the effects of the gasses that impact the climate.  The entire 800+ page report is available for free online at the Heartland Institute web site.
At the same time that there are serious doubts about the science, the costs of government regulation touting environmental benefits in reducing carbon and greenhouses gasses are becoming clearer. And they are high. According to the Heartland Institute, reducing greenhouse gas emissions “even modestly” is estimated to cost the average household in the U.S. approximately $3,372 per year and would destroy 2.4 million jobs. Electricity prices would double, sending more businesses into bankruptcy and others overseas to countries that aren’t burdened with high regulatory costs. Much of the funding for “climate change” will do nothing to help the environment at all, instead going directly to radical environmental groups who will use those resources to create sophisticated propaganda and lobbying campaigns to promote an anti-business, anti-growth agenda. If supporters of the free market do not continue to work to expose the fact the very basis, for the theories of global warming and climate change are in dispute, we will be fighting an uphill battle for our future economic prosperity down the road. Â
If Barack Obama were to marshal America’s vast scientific and strategic resources behind a new Manhattan Project, he might reasonably hope to reinvent the global energy landscape and sketch an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years.
It is now widely recognised that the misguided Copenhagen Conference was a complete failure. Those political leaders and policy makers who refuse to accept this reality are merely burying their heads in the sand and are forfeiting the trust of the public.
By Lord Christopher Monckton — The mountains shall labor, and what will be born? A stupid little mouse. Thanks to hundreds of thousands of US citizens who contacted their elected representatives to protest about the unelected, communistic world government with near-infinite powers of taxation, regulation and intervention that was proposed in early drafts of the Copenhagen Treaty, there is no Copenhagen Treaty. There is not even a Copenhagen Agreement. There is a “Copenhagen Accordâ€.
Polling data reveals Americans are growing increasingly skeptical about man-made global warming fears and claims. Voters are rejecting so-called “solutions” like cap-and-trade as well. Below is a small sampling of recent polling data on global warming.
By Pat Anderson
Entries (RSS)