|
Newsletter (October 30, 2009)
Above the FoldFriday Glenn Beck to Feature Christopher MoncktonLord Christopher Monckton, one of the world's leading critics of global warming alarmism and a former science advisor to the Thatcher government in Britain, will be featured on the Glenn Beck Program on Fox News from 5 to 6 p.m. Eastern time tonight, Friday. Monckton has long pointed out the scientific errors in the work of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and his recent comments on the threat to national sovereignty in treaty negotiations coming in Copenhagen, Denmark, December 11-17 have been seen widely over YouTube on video. Many of his papers have been published by the Science and Public Policy Institute, like his rebuttal of U.S. Energy Secretary Stephen Chu's remarks.In this issue
Featured- Rush-Defying Thought Experiments
- An Expensive Urban Legend
- 'AP IMPACT: Statisticians Reject Global Cooling'
- Proposed Bills and Regulations Will Do More Harm Than Good
Debate- Coalition of Groups Forms to Combat Cap-and-Trade Schemes
Science- Become Vegetarian to Save the Planet? Stern's Beef Against Meat Is Absurd
- Response to US Secretary of Energy on Climate Statement
- Environmentalists Divided Over Wind Turbines and Endangered Bats
- Ten Reasons Catlin Arctic Ice Survey Data Can't Be Trusted
Economics- Climate Assumptions From Another Planet
Meet the Critics: Hans H. J. Labohm & Peter Stilbs
Briefly Noted
Featuredby Paul Chesser
Director, Climate Strategies Watch; Scholar, John Locke Foundation; Correspondent, Heartland Institute
American Spectator, October 28, 2009
[Rush Limbaugh] expounded on a theme suggested by the editors of Investor's Business Daily, who wondered -- based upon Revkin's comments at conference panel discussion about "the population part of the climate and energy challenge" -- whether we are headed toward a "cap-and-trade for babies." Revkin explained his remarks at his "Dot Earth" blog:
So I mused on whether the next logical step, in a world increasingly fixated with carbon markets, would be carbon credits for avoided kids. This is something particularly relevant in the United States, which -- nearly unique for rich countries -- has a fast-growing population and very high rates of emissions per person....
As I put it...: "Should you get credit -- if we're going to become carbon-centric -- for having a one-child family when you could have had two or three. And obviously it's just a thought experiment, but it raises some interesting questions about all this." It's just unfathomable to propose carbon credits for avoided children, if we are to believe Revkin. Too radical an idea for him, you know...heh, heh...but hey, somebody else might just propose it! It's just a "thought experiment." . . .
That's where Rush comes in. After a long monologue Tuesday about the philosophical beliefs about overpopulation by environmentalists, including some in the Obama administration, the battered (by some) yet beloved (by others) talk host said:
This guy from the New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of life on earth, Andrew Revkin, Mr. Revkin, why don't you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying? While Revkin hoped Limbaugh's "kill yourself" suggestion was itself a "thought experiment," the Times reporter gave other evidence that his own views on child cutbacks were more than just an idea. For example, Revkin's response characterized a Worldwatch Institute blog post as an appropriate context for his statements:
At a Wilson Center discussion on Wednesday, New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin considered this idea and stated that having fewer children was one of the best ways that individuals could reduce their carbon footprints. Humans reproduce exponentially, and having two children instead of three could reduce energy consumption that would otherwise occur for generations. Was it just an idea, or something more? Then there's this nugget from Revkin in September:
I recently raised the question of whether this means we'll soon see a market in baby-avoidance carbon credits similar to efforts to sell CO2 credits for avoiding deforestation. This is purely a thought experiment, not a proposal. But the issue is one that is rarely discussed in climate treaty talks or in debates over United States climate legislation. If anything, the population-climate question is more pressing in the United States than in developing countries, given the high per-capita carbon dioxide emissions here and the rate of population growth. If giving women a way to limit family size is such a cheap win for emissions, why isn't it in the mix? Conclusion: Revkin may have a lot of thought experiments, but he sure is pushy about them.
Read the rest.
Related items:
Culling the Herd
by Chuck Colson
Chairman and Founder, Prison Fellowship
BreakPoint, February 5, 2009
Science Czar and Crimes Against Humanity
by Michael Egnor
Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics, Stony Brook University Hospital and Health Sciences Center; Contributor, Evolution News & Views
Science & Public Policy Institute, August 7, 2009Back to top by Roy W. Spencer
Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville; Author, DrRoySpencer.com; Author, Climate Confusion
October 24, 2009
About.com describes an “urban legend” as an apocryphal (of questionable authenticity), secondhand story, told as true and just plausible enough to be believed, about some horrific…series of events….it’s likely to be framed as a cautionary tale. Whether factual or not, an urban legend is meant to be believed. In lieu of evidence, however, the teller of an urban legend is apt to rely on skillful storytelling and reference to putatively trustworthy sources.
I contend that the belief in human-caused global warming as a dangerous event, either now or in the future, has most of the characteristics of an urban legend. Like other urban legends, it is based upon an element of truth. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose concentration in the atmosphere is increasing, and since greenhouse gases warm the lower atmosphere, more CO2 can be expected, at least theoretically, to result in some level of warming.
But skillful storytelling has elevated the danger from a theoretical one to one of near-certainty. The actual scientific basis for the plausible hypothesis that humans could be responsible for most recent warming is contained in the cautious scientific language of many scientific papers. Unfortunately, most of the uncertainties and caveats are then minimized with artfully designed prose contained in the Summary for Policymakers (SP) portion of the report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This Summary was clearly meant to instill maximum alarm from a minimum amount of direct evidence.
Next, politicians seized upon the SP, further simplifying and extrapolating its claims to the level of a “climate crisis”. Other politicians embellished the tale even more by claiming they “saw” global warming in Greenland as if it was a sighting of Sasquatch, or that they felt it when they fly in airplanes. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top by Patrick J. Michaels
Chief Editor, WorldClimateReport.com; Research Professor, University of Virginia; Senior Fellow, Cato Institute; Visiting Scientist, Marshall Institute; Author, Climate of Extremes, Meltdown, The Satanic Gases, and Sound and Fury
October 26, 2009
. . . AP’s Seth Borenstein is out there trying to find out whether or not the earth is cooling! . . .
In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time. Hmm. Why go to all the bother? This analysis has already been done numerous times. A recent example that clearly lays out the ups and downs of current temperature trends was posted about two weeks ago at the blog MasterResources.org. The figure below is taken from that post. It shows the current temperature trends from 5 to 15 years in length from all available global temperature datasets.
.jpg)
Each point on the chart represents the trend beginning in September of the year indicated along the x-axis and ending in August 2009. The different colored lines represent different temperature datasets as indicated. The trends which are statistically significant (<0.05) are indicated by filled circles. The zero line (no trend) is indicated by the thin black horizontal line, and the climate model average projected trend is indicated by the thick red horizontal line.
By judiciously selecting the time period and the dataset, you can make a case for cooling, warming, or neither. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top by Ben Lieberman
Senior Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation
October 23, 2009
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving forward aggressively to regulate fossil fuels in the name of fighting global warming. Recent agency proposals would start with emissions standards for cars and trucks, but these would likely lead to subsequent regulations affecting a million or more businesses and other energy-using entities.
Even the EPA itself admits that regulations will be burdensome, and it has not hidden the Obama Administration's strategy of threatening unworkable regulations to spur Congress to pass legislation instead. The Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer bills, like the proposed regulations, are an expensive and ineffective response to the overstated threat of global warming. Indeed, the best answer is: none of the above. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top Debateby Jeff Davis
At a press conference this morning, a number of business and interest groups announced the formation of a new coalition to oppose cap-and-trade public policy. The No Cap-and-Trade Coalition says it will kick-off its campaign with a new advertisement and website (NoCapAndTrade.com). . . .
The group is also bringing a localized educational program to areas of the state, featuring the new global warming documentary film, "Not Evil, Just Wrong." . . .
Read the rest.Back to top Scienceby E. Calvin Beisner
National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
October 27, 2009
Methane is about 0.00017% of the atmosphere--that's 1.7 parts per million (ppm). Granted, it's 23 times more powerful as an infrared absorber than carbon dioxide, which is now about 385 ppm. That means the 1.7 ppm methane have the radiative forcing power of 39.1 ppm of carbon dioxide.
Between 1979 and 1999, methane's atmospheric concentration increased by about 0.0011 ppm per year (or 0.022 ppm over the 20-year period), according to Auburn University's David Smith ("Do Cattle Really Increase Methane in the Atmosphere?"). At that rate of increase, it would take about 39.5 years (1/23 = 0.04347826; / 0.0011 = 39.5257) for methane concentration to add as much greenhouse effect as 1 ppm of carbon dioxide.
About 26%, or 0.000286 ppm, of annual methane emissions due to human activities was from ruminants (cattle, etc.). If we assume that all of these anthropogenic methane emissions remain in the atmosphere, it will take about 151.9 years for ruminant methane emissions to increase the greenhouse effect as much as 1 ppm of carbon dioxide. How much is that?
Well, it is widely estimated that a doubling of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels (from about 270 to 540 ppm) would increase average surface temperature, before feedbacks, about 2.16 degrees F, or about 0.008 degree F per part per million. So it would take about 151.9 years for ruminant methane emissions to raise temperature 0.008 degree F, or 18,987.5 years to raise it 1 degree F, before feedbacks.
What about those feedbacks (things like clouds, precipitation, evaporation, winds, convection, evapotranspiration, etc.)? Do they increase or reduce the greenhouse effect?
If Earth had no greenhouse effect, average surface temperature would be 0 degree F. With its natural greenhouse effect, but no feedbacks, it would be about 140 degrees F; with both its natural greenhouse effect and its natural feedbacks, it is about 59 degrees F. This means climate feedbacks eliminate about 58% of the greenhouse effect. They are strongly net negative.
So instead of raising temperature 1 degree F in 18,987.5 years, ruminant methane emissions would, after climate feedbacks, raise it only 0.42 degree F; it would take another 13,749.6 years, or a total of 32,737 years, to raise it the full 1 degree F.
And economist Nicholas Stern, whose Stern Review, which called for drastic and immediate action to reduce climate change, was widely condemned by economists as "the greatest application of subjective uncertainty the world has ever seen" (Martin Weitzman in Journal of Economic Literature, 45 [2007]: 703-724), not based on "solid science and economics" (Robert Mendelsohn, in Regulation, 29(4) [2006], 42-46), and "alarmist and incompetent" (Richard Tol, in Energy & Environment, 17(6) [2006], 977-981), wants to raise the price of meat, thus making its high-protein benefits to the human diet less affordable especially to the world's poor, who routinely suffer stunted growth and poor muscle development because of inadequate protein in their diets, to cut consumption to cut methane emissions to avoid this looming disaster. Pardon us if we are slightly less than impressed.Back to top by Christopher Monckton
Viscount of Brenchley; Chief Policy Adviser, Science & Public Policy Institute
October 27, 2009
Secretary Chu's statement is predicated upon two false assumptions: that the “threat” from “climate change” is “grave”; and that, even if it were grave, reducing carbon emissions would make a difference. He cites the now-outdated 2007 Climate Assessment Report of the IPCC and a subsequent but also now-outdated MIT study, saying global warming by 2100 would be 7-11 Fº. These excessive estimates are founded solely on computerized guesswork. The UN’s models are wrongly instructed to assume, and hence wrongly predict, that the warming effect of CO2 is 5-6 times higher than it is now known to be: 7 Fº at CO2 doubling, where 1 Fº is the true value.
CO2’s warming effect is best determined by measurement. It cannot be measured directly. However, it can be derived from the relationship between changes in surface temperature and corresponding changes in outgoing radiation escaping to space, though sufficient data for a reliable measurement have only become available very recently. Lindzen and Choi (2009), using outgoing-radiation data from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment satellite, forced 11 of the UN’s climate models with periods of unidirectional sea-surface temperature changes of at least 0.2 Fº, of which there were 13 in the past two decades, so as to avoid statistical “noise”. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top by Maria Glod
Writer, Washington Post
October 22, 2009
Workers atop mountain ridges are putting together 389-foot windmills with massive blades that will turn Appalachian breezes into energy. Retiree David Cowan is fighting to stop them.
Because of the bats.
Cowan, 72, a longtime caving fanatic who grew to love bats as he slithered through tunnels from Maine to Maui, is asking a federal judge in Maryland to halt construction of the Beech Ridge wind farm. The lawsuit pits Chicago-based Invenergy, a company that produces "green" energy, against environmentalists who say the cost to nature is too great. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top by Anthony Watts
Author, Watts Up With That?
October 15, 2009
I loathe having to write another story about Pen Hadow and his Catlin Arctic Ice expedition, which I consider the scientific joke of 2009. But these opportunistic explorers are once again getting some press over the “science” data, and of course it is being used to make the usual alarmist pronouncements . . .
Top Ten Reasons why the Catlin Arctic Ice Survey data can’t be trusted:
10. High profile news and PR from the beginning, plus an unrealistic vision of self importance related to the mission. . . .
8. Hadow, by his own admission, has an unrealistic and biased warmer view of the Arctic that doesn’t match the current data. . . .
Read the rest.
Related items:
Reuters Spins Growing Arctic Ice by Reporting on Predictions of Ice Free Arctic
by Marc Morano
Director, Climate Depot
October 15, 2009
Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era
World Climate Report, October 6, 2009Back to top Economicsby Roy Innis and Paul K. Driessen
National Chairman, Congress of Racial Equality (Innis); Columnist, Townhall; Senior Fellow, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, and Congress of Racial Equality; Author, Eco-Imperialism.com (Driessen)
Investor's Business Daily, October 15, 2009
As the 821-page Kerry-Boxer climate bill gets fast-tracked in the Senate as a companion to the 1,427-page House bill, it is critical we re-examine the assumptions behind cap-tax-and-trade legislation. . . .
CRA Associates, American Council for Capital Formation and others have calculated the House bill authored by Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Ed Markey, D-Mass., would cut GDP by a cumulative $9.4 trillion by 2035. Emission permit costs for energy users could top $300 billion a year by 2035. . . .
This is not wealth creation. It is a massive wealth transfer — from hydrocarbon users to carbon traders, nonhydrocarbon energy industries, bureaucrats, activists and other preferred groups. Poor families could get "energy welfare" payments, to offset some added costs, but small businesses and middle class families would get hammered. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top Meet the CriticsHave you ever been at a loss for words when challenged by the alarmist's claim of scientific "consensus," or that dissenting scientists are unqualified? Not only does consensus prove nothing, but the very idea of "consensus" among scientists on catastrophic manmade climate change is simply unfounded. A 2008 Senate Environment and Public Works Minority Report documents dissension around the world:More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent
Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Two notable critics are:
Hans H. J. Labohm, Ph.D.
UN IPCC reviewer Dr. Hans H. J. Labohm is a lecturer at the Netherlands Defense Academy and has been a researcher and advisor for the board at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations. "I started as an anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN's IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics. After that, I changed my mind," Labohm reported. Co-author of Man-Made Global Warming: Unravelling a Dogma, Labohm has written numerous articles, including What Is Wrong With the IPCC?, What Will the Future Bring: Warming or Cooling?, The End Is Not Nigh, Kyoto and the Art of Political Backtracking, and Proliferation of Climate Scepticism in Europe.
Peter Stilbs, Ph.D.
Dr. Peter Stilbs chairs the Climate Seminar in the Department of Physical Chemistry at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm and has authored over one-and-a-half hundred scientific papers. Having coordinated a meeting of international scientists, Stilbs announced that the scientists concluded: "There is no strong evidence to prove significant human influence on climate on a global basis. The global cooling trend from 1940 to 1970 is inconsistent with models based on anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Actual claims put forward are that an observed global temperature increase of about 0.3 degrees C since 1970 exceeds what could be expected from natural variation. However, recent temperature data do not indicate any continued global warming since 1998." Elsewhere, Stilbs criticized the IPCC, stating, "These [IPCC] Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts."Back to top Briefly NotedCooling Off: Growing Skepticism
Skeptical Predictions Substantiated
World Wildlife Fund Extends Dire Consequences Deadline
E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., National Spokesman
Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, http://www.cornwallalliance.org/
Information in this newsletter is for scholarly and educational use only and may not be copied or reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright holders.
|
