Archive for January, 2010

UK "climate secretary" loses it

01/31/2010

“The climate secretary, Ed Miliband, last night warned of the danger of a public backlash against the science of global warming in the face of continuing claims that experts have manipulated data.  …

[I]n the government’s first high-level recognition of the growing pressure on public opinion, Miliband declared a “battle” against the “siren voices” who denied global warming was real or caused by humans, or that there was a need to cut carbon emissions to tackle it.

“It’s right that there’s rigour applied to all the reports about climate change, but I think it would be wrong that when a mistake is made it’s somehow used to undermine the overwhelming picture that’s there,” he said.

The danger of climate scepticism was that it would undermine public support for unpopular decisions needed to curb carbon emissions, including the likelihood of higher energy bills for households, and issues such as the visual impact of wind turbines, said Miliband, who is also energy secretary.  …

“There are a whole variety of people who are sceptical, but who they are is less important than what they are saying, and what they are saying is profoundly dangerous,” he said.”  “Ed Miliband declares war on climate change sceptics

The IPCC must be disbanded — latest fraud: mountain ice

01/31/2010

“The United Nations’ expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world’s mountain tops on a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.  …

Professor Richard Tol, one of the report’s authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: “These are essentially a collection of anecdotes.  … [I]t is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two (the panel of experts within the IPCC responsible for drawing up this section of the report) has been.  …[W]hat they claim is complete nonsense.”  …

[N]either the dissertation or the magazine article cited as sources for this information were ever subject to the rigorous scientific review process that research published in scientific journals must undergo.  …

Roger Sedjo, a senior research fellow at the US research organisation Resources for the Future who also contributed to the IPCC’s latest report, added: “The IPCC is, unfortunately, a highly political organisation with most of the secretariat bordering on climate advocacy.  …

The IPCC failed to respond to questions about the inclusion of unreliable sources in its report … ”  “UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article”  h/t Larry Tomasson

Vicky Pope, "head of climate change advice at the Met Office": "What we have here is a failure to communicate"

01/30/2010

“What has changed over the past few months? Certainly not the science.  … [T]he “climategate” e-mails … do not call into question the robustness of the surface temperature record produced by UEA. There are two other independent [NOT!] data sets that show clearly that global-average temperature has increased over the past century and this warming has been particularly rapid since the 1970s.  …

What has not been called into question is the basic science.

The key finding that “warming is unequivocal and very likely due to man’s activities” remains robust.  …

The big difference then, is not in the physics of climate change but the public’s perception of what climate research is all about.

That means it is a communications problem and the blame for that has to lie at least in part with the scientists and in part with the way that science is reported.”  “Research is robust but communication is weak

Michaels: "Put the IPCC out of its misery"

01/30/2010

“Another day, another IPCC-gate.  …

The attachment of “gate” to this scandal is more than appropriate.  In its original 1973-4  incarnation, little bits of information, snippets of foul play, and deletions of records dripped out one-by-one over a year.  Ultimately the person responsible, President Richard Nixon, had to resign.

We’re seeing the same with climategate and the IPCC.  Wouldn’t if just save everyone a lot of time and trouble if Rajenda Pauchari resigned and the United Nations disbanded the IPCC.  Neither its head nor its body have any remaining credibility, so why not put it out of its misery?”  “Kill the IPCC

Obama counting phantom revenue

01/30/2010

“A trade publication is reporting this afternoon that President Obama’s 2011 federal budget proposal will assume receipt of [hundreds of] billions of dollars in revenue generated from the cap-and-trade program even though that proposal appears now to be all but dead in Congress.  …

“Obama last year proposed in his fiscal 2010 budget that a cap-and-trade program would raise some $650 billion over 10 years via a full auction of emission credits, … ”  Energy and Environment News senior reporter Darren Samuelson wrote in the publication that is subscription-only.  …

The House bill projects cap-and-trade revenues of $873 billion.

Whether it’s the $650 billion projected by the Senate bill or the $873 billion of the House bill, it appears highly unlikely, to put it charitably, that either measure will make it to Obama’s desk with the cap-and-trade program intact. That means Obama will be counting phantom revenue as part of his next federal budget proposal.”  “Obama’s 2011 budget will include phantom cap-and-trade revenue

Suggestion for Obama

01/30/2010

“President Obama this week also ordered the federal government to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 28% below current levels by 2020.  This order follows from Executive Order 13514, which the President signed last fall and which requires federal departments and agencies to set targets for cutting emissions.  He has now set their target for them.  The most practical way to meet this goal would be to shut down large parts of the federal government.  Let’s hope President Obama seizes this opportunity and achieves the most drastic downsizing of government in history.”  Cooler Heads Digest 29 January 2010

CEOs will be embarrassed

01/30/2010

“Corporate CEOs who have been actively lobbying for cap-and-trade climate legislation may soon find themselves in an embarrassing position thanks to a new Securities and Exchange Commission regulation, says Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project.

The SEC voted January 27 to provide public companies with interpretive guidance that encourages corporations to disclose the possible business and legal impact of climate change to shareholders. Full disclosure will require companies to assess and describe how cap-and-trade legislation can harm company earnings.

“Fully disclosing the business risk of cap-and-trade will embarrass many CEOs who are lobbying for emissions regulations. Shareholders will discover that these CEOs are pursuing legislation that will negatively impact their company,” said Borelli.  …

“Finally, the SEC is taking a position on the business risk of climate change regulation.  … While CEOs find it easy to ignore an individual shareholder, they can’t ignore the SEC,” said Borelli.

“Shareholders are going to discover that many CEOs have not been forthcoming about the business risk posed by cap-and-trade legislation and that they have failed to exercise their fiduciary responsibility by not assessing and communicating the impact of emissions regulations on their businesses.””  “New SEC Guidance on Climate Change Disclosure Will Force CEOs Who Lobby for Cap-and-Trade to Expose the Business Risk of Cap-and-Trade Legislation to Shareholders”  Prior post here

Cold kills bird shredders

01/29/2010

“Wind turbines placed in cities across Minnesota to generate power aren’t working because of the cold temperatures.

The Minnesota Municipal Power Association bought 11 turbines for $300,000 each from a company in Palm Springs, Calif.

Special hydraulic fluid designed for colder temperatures was used in the turbines, but it’s not working, so neither are the turbines.”  “Cold keeps Minn. wind turbines from spinning”  h/t Green Hell Blog

IPCC cites wild Greenpeace claims as peer-reviewed science

01/29/2010

Go over to No Frakking Consensus and read an expose of how the IPCC is citing unscientific claims by Greenpeace and claiming they are peer-reviewed science.

Journos continue to parrot nonsense from enviro groups: "warming causes cooling"

01/29/2010

We all, even journalists, should know how the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) supposedly works:  CO2 absorbs infrared, heating the atmosphere, and because of supposed high climate sensitivity (not) and strong positive feedback (not), runaway warming ensues.  The point is, AGW theory leads only to warming, warming, and more warming.  In spite of this simple truth, alleged journalists continue to parrot absurd nonsense from enviro groups alleging AGW causes cooling, which it cannot.  Proof that AGW is a religious belief:

This winter’s extreme weather — with heavy snowfall in some places and unusually low temperatures — is in fact a sign of how climate change disrupts long-standing patterns, according to a new report by the National Wildlife Federation.  “Harsh winter a sign of disruptive climate change, report says