Uncategorized

“GREENHOUSE 2007 is a unique opportunity to hear the latest findings in climate science, and discuss the implications for Australia and the region.

Approximately 50 of the world’s leading climate researchers will attend, including John Church, Ann Henderson-Sellers, Phil Jones, Jerry Meehl and Kevin Trenberth.

We are also pleased to confirm that Dr Jim Peacock, Australia’s Chief Scientist, and Prof. Sir David King, Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, will be presenting at GREENHOUSE 2007.”

Program here.

Palaeontologist Tim Flannery will also be there.

As a UK taxpayer, I expect I’ll be helping to foot the bill for the likes of Phil Jones and Sir David King. Colloid Chemist Sir David is perhaps best remembered for his claims that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism, and Antarctica will become the only habitable place on Earth, thanks to global warming.

Thanks to Luke Walker for alerting me to Greenhouse 2007.

White House Press Release

President Bush Participates in Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Thank you. Welcome to the State Department. I’m honored to address this historic meeting on energy security and climate change. And I appreciate you all being here.

Energy security and climate change are two of the great challenges of our time. The United States takes these challenges seriously. The world’s response will help shape the future of the global economy and the condition of our environment for future generations. The nations in this room have special responsibilities. We represent the world’s major economies, we are major users of energy, and we have the resources and knowledge base to develop clean energy technologies.

Our guiding principle is clear: We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people. We know this can be done. Last year America grew our economy while also reducing greenhouse gases. Several other nations have made similar strides.

This progress points us in the right direction, but we’ve got to do more. So before this year’s G8 summit, I announced that the United States will work with other nations to establish a new international approach to energy security and climate change. Today’s meeting is an important step in this process. With the work we begin today, we can agree on a new approach that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, strengthen energy security, encourage economic growth and sustainable development, and advance negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Applause.)

Still awake?

Read more.

Also, from CCNet:

Last year, the United States grew our economy, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
–US President Bush, 28 September 2007

US President George W Bush infuriated his critics by professing world leadership on climate change at his meeting of the top 16 world economies – while offering no new substantive policy and implicitly rejecting binding emissions controls. Some delegates were particularly upset by the extravagant invitation by Mr Bush for other nations to follow the US lead in cutting emissions while increasing the economy.
–Roger Harrabin, BBC News, 29 September 2007

Denmark’s CO2 emissions rose 16.1 per cent in 2006 compared to the previous year on the back of strong economic growth and electricity exports from coal-fired power plants, according to statistics released today.
–Point Carbon, 28 September 2007

European leaders are getting a bit impatient, not on our own behalf but on behalf of the planet. China, India and the other industrializing countries will not do anything unless the U.S. is moving.
–Connie Hedegaard, Danish Environment Minister, Washington Post, 26 September 2007

The 16 nations, invited by Bush in an initiative he unveiled ahead of the Group of Eight (G8) summit in July, were: Australia, Britain, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa and the United States. Representatives from the EU and UN also attended.

These economies together account for about 80 percent of global emissions, according to US figures.

Hansen wrote: “I did not receive one thin dime from George Soros. Perhaps GAP [Government Accountability Project] did, but I would be surprised if they got $720,000 (that’s a lot of Mercedes). Whatever amount they got, I do not see anything wrong with it. They are a non-profit organization. Seems like a great idea to have some good lawyers trying to protect free speech.

By the way, in case anybody finds out that George Soros INTENDED to send me $720,000 but could not find my address, please let me know! We are pretty hard pressed here.”

To buttress his position, Hansen copied a letter sent by GAP and his counsel to NASA chief Michael Griffin asking for assurances he would “not be punished for exercising his rights under the First Amendment, Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), and the Anti-Gag Statute to share his internationally-renowned expertise on climate change.”

Direct link to Hansen’s response here.

Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters.org:

NASA’s James Hansen Claims He’s Being ‘Swift-boated’ by Critics

Those Europeans Say the Darnedest Things

Chris Horner

September 26, 2007

Today’s Washington Post story was replete with pompous and absurd proclamations – the pompous being the Danish Environment Minister claiming that she and her ilk “are getting a bit impatient, not on our own behalf but on behalf of the planet.” The condemnations of the US included “unusually blunt language” about how the rest of the world are waiting for the US to act, and that it is the US resistance to adopting a particular approach to addressing emissions that jeopardizes the climate. Not China, India, Mexico and 155 countries representing the vast majority of emissions seeing theirs skyrocket; certainly not the EU.

Although that specific assertion begs the question, no mention was made of actual emissions (sidebar: this story was written by Juliet Eilperin, who has this beat and is by no means new to the story. Putting aside that the administration has only once uttered something that can be called a robust comparison of US and EU performance, it remains baffling that she and her peers can continue writing as if what it is now well understood were never in fact revealed.)

givne that the European Environment Agency may play rhetorical games but it makes no secret of the fact that Europe is not lowering but increasing their emissions, which are up since Kyoto was agreed not down, this struck me as possibly clever groundwork-laying for that which ultimately must publicly come to pass: Europe explaining away the gaping chasm between global warming “world leader!” rhetoric and actual emissions performance. We would’ve cut them but we’re waiting on the US to do something. Don’t laugh, that wouldn’t be all that aberrant for Brussels, Berlin or Paris.

Regardless, yesterday’s vulgar display prompted me to tally the comparative, real emission increases in US and EU, given I have heard the counter “well, in percentage terms, but…” when I point out that EU emissions are increasing faster than the US’s under any modern baseline (that is, since Kyoto was agreed and the EU commenced its breast-beating).

We know that the US CO2 emissions are going up at a much slower rate than the EU-15 (“Europe” per Kyoto). We know that, as a result of the EU-15’s obvious failure to reduce emissions, even Cf. 1990 (with the gift that that baseline was to them, for reasons of unrelated UK and DE political decisions), the EU-likes to redefine Europe. They do this to boast on the EU-25 doing this or that — usually, being on target to meet its [sic] Kyoto promise…there not being an EU-25 Kyoto promise, but one collective promise for the EU-15 and 10 different other individual promises, plus 2 countries that are exempt from Kyoto. They do this now as a way to ride the economic collapse of Eastern Europe, reclaiming the hoped-for benefits of the 1990 baseline that slipped away for the more developed EU countries.

However, having a higher percentage increase for even an economy smaller than the US’s (EU-15) means that one might actually produce a larger real emission increase as great or greater than the US. One cost of redefining one’s self as is convenient is that it allows others to do so, possibly guaranteeing that a larger real emission increase is the case.

It turns out that a quick review indicates that real EU-25 CO2 emissions have increased more than the US since, say, 2000, by a third as much (133.1%) in fact. If my numbers are right, that means +177.7 MMT for the EU-25 in 2005 Cf. 2000, as compared to the US’s +133.5 MMT 2005 over 2000, per the Energy Information Administration numbers (I have only just done this and do not know how it holds for older baselines, e.g., 1997 being the only potentially relevant year).

And oh, dear, even without the EU-10, the EU-15, “Old Europe” – a smaller economy than the US’s – increased emissions by 161.67 MMT to the US’s 133.5 over the same period; that is our climate hectors have increased real emissions more than the US’s, in real terms, by 21%.

So there is no need to rely on the “in percentage terms” qualifier when noting that Europe’s emissions have risen faster than the US’s (as Kyoto defines Europe). Instead, it appears that Europe’s emissions (as Kyoto defines Europe, and certainly as Europe defines Europe, including for these purposes) have not only increased much faster than the US’s but also that the EU has increased CO2 emissions much more than the US.

It seems the only thing standing between Europe and a reality check is a White House calling them on their bluster.

globalwarming.org

Patrick Moore to CCNet:

Excellent comment by Chris Horner on the fact that EU CO2 emissions are increasing faster than the US. Does this confirm the US position that technology is the key, not political targets?

Perhaps the Danish Environment Minister is not aware of the fact that Denmark has the highest CO2 emissions per capita of the EU 15? Yes, they have 18% wind energy but the other 82% is all fossil fuel. Denmark has no hydro-electric because it is flat and they have no nuclear because they are anti-nuclear. Denmark produces 11 tonnes CO2 per capita whereas Sweden, the lowest per capita of the EU 15, produces 6.3 tonnes per capita, in a colder climate. Sweden’s electricity is 50% hydro-electric and 50% nuclear, i.e. no carbon. France has the second lowest at 6.8 tonnes per capita, primarily due to 80% nuclear electricity. Germany produces 10.2 tonnes per capita with only 30% nuclear and a lot of fossil fuel. It is clear that given comparable per capita GDP, CO2 emissions per capita are largely governed by electricity generation technology. The more nuclear, hydro-electric and wind the lower the emissions.

France and Germany provide a stark comparison. France has 80% nuclear, low per capita emissions, and is the only country in Western Europe with a large surplus of electricity for export. Their electricity technology is in line with climate policy. Germany, under the Social Democrat/Green alliance, voted to phase out all their nuclear plants. The only possible replacement is either domestic dirty brown coal or Russian gas, both of which would increase CO2 emissions above present levels. At the same time the German government has committed to reduce CO2 emissions by 20 by 2020. These two objectives can not be attained simultaneously thus Germany has logically inconsistent and dysfunctional policies for energy and climate. Meanwhile Germany is importing billions of dollars worth of nuclear energy from France. And Chancellor Schroeder, who presided over the decision to shut down the nuclear industry, took the job of European representative for Gazprom, the Russian gas monopoly, immediately after stepping down. Talk about creating your own job.

It is clear to me that until the “green” movement recognizes that nuclear and hydro-electric are the primary technologies capable of getting us off fossil fuels, they will remain a primary obstacle to the realistic achievement of CO2 emissions reduction.

Patrick Moore [pmoore@greenspirit.com]

Woody Harrelson calls for green activism

Excerpt: Woody Harrelson called for more anti-oil activism at a media and technology conference Thursday, though he declined to say how far he was willing to go personally as a protester. “In spite of the fact that there’s an increase in awareness of what’s going on in terms of polar ice caps melting and just global warming generally … oil companies don’t seem to be making much of a change,” the 46-year-old actor said. Harrelson was at the “Picnic” conference, which has a green theme and features a contest in which British billionaire Richard Branson will award $700,000 to the winning idea for an environmental project. “Certainly (oil companies) just want to get as much out of the ground and make as much money as possible before they transition into anything else,” Harrelson said. “So I still think it’s time for some strong activism, especially as it relates to our dependency on oil.”

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-et-ap-harrelson27sep27,1,1133949.story?coll=la-celebrity-news&ctrack=1&cset=true

Update: NASA’s Hansen Mentioned in Soros Foundations Annual Report

Excerpt: Since this editorial was published, according to LexisNexis and Google News searches, not one major media outlet has reported these allegations. Maybe even more shocking is that had press outlets looked into this matter – you know, acted like journalists instead of advocates! – they would have found Hansen’s name prominently mentioned in the 2006 Soros Foundations Network Report (relevant section on page 123): < > Here, in Soros Foundations’ annual report, is a direct connection to Hansen, along with an admission that “The campaign on Hansen’s behalf resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy.” As is typical, a global warming obsessed media don’t find this newsworthy. Think they’d be so disinterested if this smoking gun involved an oil company giving money to a Republican official? While you ponder, forward to page 143 (emphasis added): note: The Strategic Opportunities Fund includes grants related to Hurricane Katrina ($1,652,841); media policy ($1,060,000); and politicization of science ($720,000). Add it all up, and everything the IBD editorial claimed – that a high-ranking official at NASA may have received money from an organization funded by George Soros in order to politicize science — is actually available in this annual report. Yet, not one media outlet thought this was newsworthy.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/26/nasa-s-hansen-mentioned-soros-foundations-annual-report

U.S. Senate Hearing on Global Wamring & Sea Level Rise

Excerpt: Senator Inhofe detailed the latest peer-reviewed science that counters global warming led sea level rise fears. “Greenland has cooled since the 1940’s. According to multiple peer-reviewed studies, current temperatures in Greenland have not even reached the temperatures from the 1930s and 1940s. It is important to note that 80% of man-made CO2 came after these high temperatures were reached in Greenland. We have seen global average temperatures flat line since 1998 and the Southern Hemisphere cool in recent years,” he explained. (LINK) Dennis T. Avery, of the Hudson Institute, testified that the recent warming cycle is tied to natural climate factors. “The natural climate cycle is apparently driven by the sun, and the warmings are unstoppable,” Avery said. Avery co-authored the 2006 book “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years” with atmospheric physicist Dr. Fred Singer.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=435fb939-802a-23ad-40c2-677f4b36edbf

‘Too Late To Avoid Global Warming’

Excerpt: A rise of two degrees centigrade in global temperatures – the point considered to be the threshold for catastrophic climate change which will expose millions to drought, hunger and flooding – is now “very unlikely” to be avoided, the world’s leading climate scientists said yesterday.

The latest study from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) put the inevitability of drastic global warming in the starkest terms yet, stating that major impacts on parts of the world – in particular Africa, Asian river deltas, low-lying islands and the Arctic – are unavoidable and the focus must be on adapting life to survive the most devastating changes.

http://www.countercurrents.org/milmo190907.htm

VA’s Skeptical State Climatologist Forced out for views?

Excerpt: The Washington Times reports that prominent global warming skeptic and Virginia State Climatologists Patrick Michaels was pressured to step down from his post over the summer. The Times writes: “Mr. Michaels has been a leading skeptic of global-warming theories. Although he thinks global warming is real and influenced by humans, he contends it is caused primarily by natural forces.” The administration of Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, asked Mr. Michaels last year to refrain from using his title when conducting non-state business because of fears his views would be perceived as an official state position. The governor’s office said Mr. Michaels, appointed by Gov. John N. Dalton, a Republican, was not a gubernatorial appointee, contending that the climatology office became UVa.’s domain in 2000. Mr. Michaels, 57, called his resignation a sad result of the fact that his state climatologist funding had become politicized, compromising his academic freedom. “It’s very simple,” he said. “I don’t think anybody was able to come to a satisfactory agreement about academic freedom.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/09/global_warming_and_freedom.html

Intellectual dishonesty in peer review? (Climate Audit)

Excerpt: On Sep 21, 2007, Hugues Goosse, the Climate of the Past editor responsible for the Juckes article, published a statement saying that a revised version of the Juckes et al article had been submitted to “conventional” refereeing and accepted on Sept 21, 2007. He said: “On the other hand, the authors disagree with one reviewer on some points for which no clear consensus could be gained from published literature. The arguments of the authors appear reasonable from our present knowledge of the field and are presented in a balanced way. As a consequence, I decided to accept the paper for publication in Climate of the Past.” I presume that I was the “one reviewer”, although Willis Eschenbach and Mark Rostron also submitted critical reviews. Under CP policies, authors are supposed to respond to review comments. I’ve collated my review comments together with Juckes’ replies. It is remarkable how insolent and unresponsive Juckes’ comments are. In virtually every case, I’ve provided a detailed and analytical comment and Juckes virtually never makes a direct and straightforward reply, rebutting the comment in straightforward terms. See what you think.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2105

Academic Misconduct Alleged in Climate Research

Excerpt: The European Science Foundation just wrapped up the first World Conference on Research Integrity. Held in Lisbon, this historic three-day conference drew hundreds of scientists to address what they call the “open sore” of science — the falsification or misrepresentation of research data. < > Keenan filed a Freedom of Information Act claim to find the source of Wang’s data — a report written jointly by the U.S. DOE and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. He quickly found a smoking gun. The data came from only 84 stations, 60% of which had no history whatsoever, and the report claims “details regarding instrumentation, collection methods, observing times … are not known.” Of the 35 remaining, over half had moved large distances (one station moving as many as five times) or had serious, known inconsistencies in the record. The report specifically contradicts Wang’s claims, concluding that “even the best stations were subject to minor relocations or changes in observing times and many have undoubtedly experienced large increases in urbanization.” Keenan immediately filed a formal allegation of fraud against Wang, a charge which is pending investigation at this time. Why is all this important? Because even though the Earth is warming, the rate of warming is critical. Even the IPCC admits natural factors are responsible for some of recent temperature rises. The entire theory of anthropogenic global warming hinges on one factor — whether the rate is too fast to be explained by natural causes. Put simply, if UHI effects really are raising temperature readings substantially, the primary justification for human-induced global warming vanishes. Kaput.

http://www.dailytech.com/+Academic+Misconduct+Alleged+in+Climate+Research/article8988.htm

Wetlands Methane Counteracts Kyoto Emissions Cuts

Excerpt: new study that will appear in Thursday’s journal Nature revealed that methane being released from bogs in what is now Great Britain likely contributed to global warming 55 million years ago. Maybe more importantly, when you add up the methane being released from wetlands around the world, it could completely counteract all the carbon dioxide emissions reductions mandated by the Kyoto Protocol. < > As reported by National Geographic Wednesday (emphasis added throughout): Huge belches of methane from bogs in what is now Britain likely contributed to global warming some 55 million years ago, a new study says. The emissions probably amplified an ancient and extreme global warming event that heated Arctic Ocean waters to a balmy 73 degrees Fahrenheit (23 degrees Celsius). The finding adds weight to the idea that methane being released from wetlands today may accelerate modern global warming.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/methane-wetlands-counteracts-kyoto-protocol-s-emissions-cuts

Congressman John Dingell Proposes 50-cent Gas Tax Hike to Fight Global Warming

EXCPERT: Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won’t like — a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners. “I’m trying to have everybody understand that this is going to cost and that it’s going to have a measure of pain that you’re not going to like,” Rep. John Dingell, who is marking his 52nd year in Congress, said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298271,00.html