Posts Tagged ‘science’

The Great Global Warming Fizzle article posted at the Wall Street Journal on November 29, 2011

We agree that “Global Warming” has many of the aspects of “religion”.  As the author, Bret Stephens, says

Consider the case of global warming, another system of doomsaying prophecy and faith in things unseen. As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term “climate change” when thermometers don’t oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other “deniers.” And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit.

Faith in Green Energy is not proving to be very profitable.
This article describes the company A123 System, a poster child for “successful” clean tech.  The company manufactures lithium ion batteries and energy storage systems. You might want to check the stock price for this company (NasdaqGS: AONE) – not a great story!  For more information read the article posted at Forbes on November 29, 2011 – Watching The Wheels Come Off The Green Machine

The body count continues to rise as the Green Jobs Revolution sputters its way to the end of a disastrous 2011.

This article, Inconvenient Truths about “Renewable” Energy posted May 21, 2011 at the Wall Street Journal questions the premise that “renewable” energy sources will replace fossil fuels. For many reasons highlighted in the article, betting on “renewable” energy is a bad idea.
Better to have some common sense instead of catchy phrases like “green/clean” and “carbon footprint”.

When will Common Sense be restored in America?
We provide a link here to Lori Borgman’s article The Death of Common Sense

Fred Singer, President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project and Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia, spoke at CSU (Colorado State University) in Ft. Collins on July 18th.  Unfortunately the room was not set up to allow Fred to present his visual aids, so Fred made his presentation without his many interesting charts. I was fortunate enough to also attend Fred’s presentation at NIST Boulder Laboratories in Boulder the following day, so was able to see the charts he referred to at the CSU presentation.

Fred’s presentation was based mainly on his report published in 2008 titled “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” (See Reference section below for link)

Fred highlighted the following major questions at the NIST presentation:

1. Is warming due to natural causes or anthropogenic (ie, due to human causes)? He described why this is both a Science issue and a Policy Issue.

2. Why is there a disparity between models? Using the data from 2007 IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) report  there is a clear discrepancy between the Model results and “fingerprints” (observed patterns of warming).

3. What causes Climate Variability?   In addition to greenhouse gasses, other factors like internal oscillations of the atmosphere-ocean system,  influence of clouds and solar activity need to be considered.

Fred also commented on evidence of abuses of the peer review process at IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and the Michael Mann Hockey Stick Chart as examples that clearly calls for an assessment by the scientific community to evaluate their behavior.  We suggest you view the presentations at the recent International Conference on Climate Change hosted by Heartland Institute. The theme of the conference was “Restoring the Scientific Method”. (See Reference section below for link)

At both presentations Fred commented on the global warming trend… yes, we are in a warming trend, however the current cycle is not unusual (for example: it was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period).

Chart from Roy Spencer’s Global Warming Website.

Also, this chart of global satellite-based temperatures shows a warming trend from 1910 thru 1940, then a cooling trend, increase beginning in 1975 with a “spike” in 1997… if CO2 was is a major contributor to warming then one would expect a steady increase in temperature over the last 100 years.  Chart from page 5, “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” paper by Fred Singer dated 2008

One more interesting chart, Global averaged satellite-based Temperature Chart for 1979 thru current year.
From Roy Spencer’s Global Warming Website

_                                                                                                                     _
_                                                                                                                     _
We agree with Fred’s conclusion stated in his 2008 report,

Our imperfect understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change means the science is far from settled.  This, in turn, means proposed efforts to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions are premature and misguided.  Any attempt to influence global temperatures by reducing such emissions would be both futile and expensive.

Reference:

“Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”, report by S. Fred Singer, dated 2008

Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (MIPCC), “Climate Change Reconsidered”, released June 2009.

Roy Spencer’s Global Warming Website ( www.drroyspencer.com)

Sixth International Conference on Climate Change hosted by Heartland Institute in Washington, D.C. on June 30 to July 1, 2011. The scientists who spoke at this conference are committed to restoring the scientific method.  The conference theme was “Restoring the Scientific Method”.

http://climateconference.heartland.org/

Article in Colorodoan about Fred Singer’s presentation at CSU on July 18th, dated July 19, 2011.

How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff – great book to inform you how numbers can be used to fool you rather than inform.

Will the EPA make a New Year’s resolution to base their decisions on real science and realistic cost/benefit analysis?

Ozone Air Quailty, 1980 to 2009 (Based on Annual 4th Maximum 8-hour average), National trend based on 255 sites.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) announcements
EPA announces …
.. a delay in date to issue 8-hour ozone standard until no later than July 31, 2011 [1,2,3]
.. a delay in date to issue a rule regarding emissions limits for boilers. In June 2010. the EPA issued a proposal that would force industrial, commercial and institutional boilers and heaters to use “maximum achievable control technology (MACT)” to reduce harmful emissions.  The proposal was due Dec 16, the new date will be April 2012.  [3]

Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla), Ranking Member of Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works welcomes the news of the delay.  He calls on the EPA to “rely on the best available science to guide its decision-making” [4].  National Association of Manufacturers welcome the EPA’s decision to delay its final rules on both the Boiler MACT and ozone NAAQS  [5]

Will the EPA make use of this delay to collect  the best quality of information to make an informed decision on the need for a stricter NAAQS(National Ambient Air Quality Standards).

Our research indicates that the EPA intends to restrict their inquiry to a review of the science used by CASAC (Clean Air Science Advisory Committee) to make their recommendation of lowering the national standard for ozone to between 60 and 70 parts per billion (ppb) . It is expected that the EPA will select a standard in the range recommended by the CASAC. This looks like a bureaucratic approach rather than using this time to take an unbiased, fresh look at the issue.
In an interesting article found at FrontPage Magazine, Rich Trzupek [6] questions this limited inquiry.  He points out that the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to review the latest scientific information and standards  [7].  Limiting the task to the CASAC – Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (appointed by EPA Administrator) is not a good idea.

What are the real issues here and who is best qualified to make an assessment? We have lots of questions!

?? Is it time for congress to redefine the mission of EPA and/or objectives for Clean Air? Would lowering the ozone standard protect public health? If so, what are the benefits? What independent scientific studies support this assumption?

?? Is it the role of government to enforce rules and regulations in the hope that fewer people will have Asthma?  From a scientific and/or common sense point of view, is this is an achievable objective?  It is interesting that in the last 20 years the prevalence of asthma in the United States has doubled [8].  In the period from 1980 to 2008, the national average of ozone concentration has decreased by 30% [9]. One might conclude that the answers to reducing asthma in the US population might not come from lowering the ozone standard!

?? How to establish an independent advisory voice to EPA (currently CASAC members are appointed by EPA administrator)?

?? Is it time to overturn the Supreme Court ruling from 2001, “EPA may not consider implementation costs in setting primary and secondary NAAQS”? Congress needs to take an active role, establish reasonable guidelines for how to determine costs and benefits. It is common sense that costs should be part of the evaluation.

Sources:
[1] Details about EPA statement found in article posted December 8, 2010 at Energy & Environment Monitor
[2] Article at ORCAA Air News, dated December 8, 2010 – EPA delays 8-hour Ozone NAAQS
[3] Article posted at The New York Times dated December 9, 2010 – E.P.A. Delays Tougher Rules on Emissions – suggests that the Obama administration is retreating on long-delayed environmental regulations (rules governing smog and toxic emissions from industrial boilers) as it adjusts to the new political climate in Washington following the election in November.
[4] Inhofe Responds to EPA’s Ozone Delay – statement
[5] EPA Delays on Boiler MACT and Ozone Rules a Step in the Right Direction - article posted at National Association of Manufacturers, dated 12/8/2010
[6] FrontPageMag.com article posted Jan 13, 2010   Politicizing Smog
[7] EPA – Ozone Air Quality Standards
[8] Health effects of Ozone in Patients with Asthma – prevalence of asthma in US doubled in last 20 years.
[9]EPA – National Trends in Ozone Levels – 30% decrease in National Average Ozone Concentration

It seems the AGW (anthropogenic global warming ie human-caused) crowd still doesn’t “get it”. Using “global warming pollution” and calling coal a “dirty source of energy” presupposes some assumptions that have … for about 3 years now … and especially in the last year … been proved to be false. We call on the AGW crowd to do their homework and stop attacking “carbon”. We call on business to get some backbone and stop pandering to the “Green” folks … and defend the use of coal as a American-sourced low-cost fuel that makes sense to support the energy needs of America.

Some references about this attack by Greenpeace

Greenpeace International (Facebook page) calling for Facebook to use 100% renewable energy, click here to read article

Fox News Article dated Aug 2, 2010 “Greenpeace De-friends Facebook”, click here to read article.

Greenpeace International – article dated Aug 2 “Fox News takes a look at Facebook and Coal (Video)

For those who still think carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are causing unprecedented global warming and if we don’t switch to renewable energy (regardless of the cost), disaster is ahead … we recommend the following reading in addition to other articles on this web site.

Is the current global warming unusual?

This chart tells the story, for more information click here to see article at LongRangeWeather.com “Global Temperature Trends from 2500 B.C. to 2040 A.D.

Here’s an article from the Washington Times dated May 19, 2010 “Nero was hotter than Al Gore”

To quote part of the article..
The planet has never been warmer than it is right now, if you believe what global warming alarmists have to say. Mankind’s selfishness in producing “excessive” amounts of carbon dioxide has set us on a path toward global cataclysm, they insist. The problem with this tale is that it neither fits with the historical record nor with a growing body of scientific evidence.

Does increasing CO2 cause global warming?
This article by James Peden posted on The Middlebury Community Network website is a bit long but well worth you time to read.

Here are a few quotes from the Peden article
Co2 is a non-toxic, non-polluting, earth-friendly component that really is critical to our survival.

This was the fundamental mistake that Mann, Al Gore, the Oscar boys, the Nobel Committee, the IPCC, and just about everyone else on the planet made at the beginning. They immediately assumed, noticing that CO2 levels and global temperatures had a pretty good correlation, that CO2 was the culprit, and was causing global temperatures to rise. In fact, it appears it was just the opposite: rising global temperatures caused increased CO2 level in the atmosphere.

Is the “science” settled?
Please take a look at this letter sent Dec 13, 2007 to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and signed by 100 Scientists. Numerous article point out the deficiencies in efforts to model the climate, the advice in this letter … focus on helping people adapt. “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.”

Of course there are many more recent sources, we recommend watching the videos of presentations at the 4th Annual International Conference on Climate Change (meeting held in Chicago, IL on May 16-18, 2010) posted on the Heartland Institute website.

In addition to the fact that attacking coal has no justification based on science, environmentalists and legislators and bureaucrats are causing real harm by justifying huge subsidies and proposing unnecessary rules and regulations.

Read our article about the rule submitted by the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) on December 15, 2009 relating to greenhouse gasses and hearing in the US Senate.

Here’s an article posted at OregonLive.com dated July 12, 2010
“Pacific Power customers face a ‘rate shock’ in 2011”

And finally, an interesting list of countries that now realize that renewable energy is a massive waste of taxpayer funds and has zero or negligible effect on CO2 emissions. Article found at The Carbon Sense Coalition (located in Australia) dated July 21, 2010 “Sunset for Subsidies” Read the rest of this entry »

We liked this cartoon from “The Gentleman from Lickskillet” comic strip by Steven J. Allen and Kevin Tuma. This cartoon strip describes the adventures of Congressman Randall Dill, his family, constituents and adversaries. Click here to visit The Gentleman from Lickskillet website.

For excellent information about climate change issues, we suggest you view coverage of the Heartland Institute’s 4th Annual International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-4) – a worldwide gathering of global warming “realists” – held in Chicago, IL, on May 16-18. PJTV will offer viewers videos and analysis from each keynote speaker as well as a number of the conference events.
More than 700 people — including a good many scientists, along with economists, policy analysts, and legislators — gathered together to  discuss the once-settled but increasingly controversial proposition of an anthroprogenic global warming (AGW) crisis. There was general agreement to explore real-world facts and test the assertions of alarmists. The presenters and audience members continually asked whether the data says what the modelers say it does.
Videos of the presentations at the conference can be found at Heartland Institute Web site…get informed.

Here are a few quotes from a FOXNews article updated April 26, 2010. Title of Article “Climate Scientist, Heated Up Over Satirical video, Threatens Lawsuit”

The revelations of the leaked e-mails brought into question the methodology used to prove the Earth is getting hotter, and the phrase “hide the decline” became a catchphrase for questioning a human role in global warming.

The guy is crazy to threaten legal action,” said Jeff Davis, the President of No Cap and Trade, a large organization that includes the group Mann is threatening to sue, Minnesotans for Global Warming. “A lawsuit would give us full discovery — and there’s a lot to look at in his work.”

update May 14, 2010 – Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has begun an investigation of Michael Mann. Mann recieved nearly half a million dollars in state grant-funded climate research … if the Virginia AG uncovers evidence of impropriety, the school could be commanded to return the funds, and pick up the cost of the AG’s investigation.  Here is more info in a FOX News article and at Climate Change Fraud blog.

April 3, 2010 – EPA issues rules on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions  and states line up to legally challenge the new regulations. 

In the last few month various bills have been introduced (or are being drafted) by Congress … Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) asserts that greenhouse gas regulation would be better done by Congress than by an appointed agency.  House Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-North Dakota) states that the Clean Air Act was not developed for greenhouse gas emissions, and it does not work to try and shoehorn greenhouse gas emissions into this statute.

In 2007, The Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act.  The EPA was directed to determine whether GHG from vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution and that this pollution may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

In 2007, there was consensus on human-caused global warming and associated climate change predictions.  Now significant questions have been raised. Questions about the quality of the science behind the assumptions.  Also there are many  unanswered questions regarding air quality… how to measure, what level of “pollution” is a threat to “public health and welfare”, cost/benefit issues, etc.

We are in agreement that rulings made in 2007 need to be revisited …   here are some articles to help you get informed.

• FOX News article – More States Sue EPA as Agency Issues First Climate Change Regulations
• Article at SolveClimate.com – Mar 3, 2010 – EPA’s authority to regulate Greenhouse Gases comes under fire from all angles – article supplies many links to help you get informed.
• EPA.gov – Climate Change – Regulatory Initiatives
• Article by Thomas Pyle at the DailyCaller – Energy and Climate, March Madness-style