Climate & Climate Change

An Inconvenient Truth or a convenient teaching aid?Readers may recall that the then Education Secretary Alan Johnson, and then Environment Secretary David Milliband sent a DVD of Al Gores film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ to all secondary schools in England as part of the ‘sustainable schools’ programme (Newsletter 13th April). The government, enthusiastically endorsing the view that the debate over the science of climate change was over, saw this as a good way of getting the message over to the next generation.

But not everyone agrees. Thursday’s Daily Telegraph carries a report of a legal challenge by one parent and school governor: Stewart Dimmock, who has two children at a school in Dover . He is asking for a judicial review of the government’s action. With Mr Milliband now having moved on to higher things, the challenge is actually to Ed Balls, the current Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. On 27th, there will be an oral hearing. If successful, Mr Dimmock’s case will be heard and a decision made by the judge.

The challenge is based on a provision in the 1996 Education Act requiring that local education authorities, school governors and head teachers ‘shall forbid… the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school’. If material of a political nature is presented to children, then the same parties have an obligation to take ‘such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that…they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views’.

The success or failure of this challenge rests, therefore, on two decisions: whether or not ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ does indeed represent a partisan view and, if so, whether sufficient balance is being provided when it is shown to children. In practical terms, it is the first decision which is more important. If a judge rules that the film is indeed partisan and unbalanced, then this would be both highly embarrassing for the government and should give politicians both here and in other countries pause for thought about how certain the science espoused by the IPCC truly is.

It is interesting to contrast the reception given to Al Gore’s polemic and the Channel 4 documentary ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. The latter came in for virulent criticism both for the science on which it was based and its presentation. With such a challenging title, it was bound to court controversy, and some of the criticism was indeed justified. However, it presented a point of view, rather than putting forward incontestable truth. If balance is needed, perhaps the answer is to show both programmes and then debate the points raised.

‘An Inconvenient Truth’ on the other hand, not only received a rapturous reception (including an Oscar for Gore himself) but valid criticisms have been brushed aside. More worrying than any factual errors is the exaggeration and use of emotional imagery to ram home the points. A viewer is left with the misleading impression that a large rise in sea level is likely to cause major coastal flooding this century, at a time when the IPCC is actually reducing its forecasts, and also that polar bears are immediately threatened, whereas most colonies are thriving. That doesn’t strike us as a balanced view, and it will be interesting to see if the judge next week is of the same opinion.

Environmental costs and benefits
This week, a new report by John Llewellyn of Lehman Brothers has been published. Entitled ‘The Business of Climate Change II’, it is a follow up to one published in February. In it, Llewellyn estimates the effective cost of carbon implicit in some of the policy choices made by government, and some may be surprised by his findings. His argument is that a proper macroeconomic analysis would show that some initiatives simply are not cost-effective.

The headline figure is for photovoltaics, or solar power. Because the equipment is so expensive and the output so low, the effective cost of carbon (borne to a very large extent by the taxpayer via government subsidies) is $6,300 per tonne. This compares to a current market price of around $70 per tonne in the European carbon trading system. Germany is sometimes held up as an example to follow because of the relatively high penetration of solar cells, but this is simply because the government is prepared to put in far more subsidies than other countries. Whether German taxpayers would agree if they knew the full picture is a moot point.

But ultimately, the wisdom of going down this route has to be questioned when there are much more cost effective alternatives available. They may not be as sexy, but low energy light bulbs can reduce carbon emissions at a cost of only $10 per tonne. In the meantime, European governments continue to push ahead with other more expensive options. Offshore wind comes in at a relatively reasonable (but still uneconomic) $150 per tonne, but the estimate of the implicit cost of carbon to meet the EU’s new car emission targets is $700-$2,300 per tonne.

The message from governments seems to be to reduce carbon at any price. This is both wasteful and foolish. New technologies need to be nurtured until they become economic, but actively commercialising them at taxpayers’ expense is surely not sensible when more cost-effective alternatives are available.

Electric cars
Much is heard from time to time about electric cars. On the face of it, they sound ideal: clean, silent and not a whiff of CO2 emitted. But the reality is somewhat different. Despite continued improvements in battery technology, any practical car developed so far can travel only a very limited distance before needing recharging. This may be OK for cities if there are sufficient charging points available, but would be no good for longer journeys. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see what the motor industry comes up with and whether all-electric cars will become competitive with internal combustion or hybrid vehicles.

A more important point, though, if electric cars really do take off, is the source of the power and the overall efficiency of the whole system. Petrol engines are not particularly thermally efficient (less than 30%), while diesels may typically achieve over 50% efficiency. But coal-fired power stations operate typically at about 37% efficiency, and gas ones at up to 45%. In both cases, transmission losses to the consumer are estimated at 7.7%. The electric motors which drive the cars themselves are over 90% efficient, so the power losses at this stage are relatively small. On the face of it, generating electricity and distributing it to cars gives a similar overall efficiency to the petrol engine, but is beaten by diesels.

So, a move to electric cars would make little difference to overall energy use and, if fossil fuels are used to generate power, pretty much the same carbon emissions would result. Adding extra renewable generating capacity to power the cars would be both more expensive and give only an intermittent supply: perfect for those whose cars only need recharging when it’s sunny or windy. The only reliable answer would be additional nuclear capacity. For any country which seriously wants to reduce carbon emissions, this is surely the only way forward.

Electric cars, as any supposed panacea, need to be looked at more carefully before we rush to judgement. And, of course, if they are successful, they do nothing to ease congestion, but would be exempt from congestion charges. An interesting conundrum…

The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre, Cowley Road, Cambridge CB4 0WS
Tel: +44 1223 421242

NASA’s 1971 Warning: ‘New Ice Age Coming’

Excerpt: NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting “court jesters,” appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years. “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming,” blares the headline of the July 9, 1971, article, which cautions readers that the world “could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts.” The scientist was S.I. Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen’s at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus. The 1971 article, discovered this week by Washington resident John Lockwood while he was conducting related research at the Library of Congress, says that “in the next 50 years” — or by 2021 — fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere “could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees,” resulting in a buildup of “new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070919/NATION02/109190067

NASA Recalculates hottest year in U.S. Yet Again: 1934 & 1998 Declared Tied Now

Excerpt: On Sept 15, Jerry Brennan observed that the NASA U.S. temperature history had changed and that 1998 was now co-leader atop the U.S. leaderboard. By this time, we’d figured out exactly what Hansen had done: they’d switched from using the SHAP version – which had been what they’d used for the past decade or so – to the FILNET version. The impact at Detroit Lakes was relatively large – which was why we’d noticed it, but in the network as a whole the impact of the change was to increase the trend slightly – enough obviously to make a difference between 1934 and 1998 – even though this supposedly was of no interest to anyone.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/17/nasa-s-hansen-playing-enron-accounting-games-climate-data

Antarctic Ice Grows to Record Level according to U. Of Illinois Polar Research Group

Excerpt: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 – New historic SH sea ice maximum and NH sea ice minimum – The Southern Hemisphere sea ice area has broken the previous maximum of 16.03 million sq. km and is currently at 16.26 million sq. km. This represents an increase of about 1.4% above the previous SH ice area record high. The observed sea ice record in the Southern Hemisphere (1979-present) is not as long as the Northern Hemisphere. Prior to the satellite era, direct observations of the SH sea ice edge were sporadic.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Say what? Polar Research Group now says ‘glitch’ caused false Antarctic record growth

Excerpt: Correction: we had previously reported that there had been a new SH historic maximum ice area. Unfortunately, we found a small glitch in our software. The timeseries have now been corrected and are showing that we are very close to, but not yet, a new historic maximum sea ice area for the Southern Hemisphere.

Flashback: Stephen Hawking Warns Earth’s Temps May Reach 250 Degrees C! in DiCaprio’s “The 11th Hour”

Excerpt: Stephen Hawking, the esteemed physicist and author, most vividly describes the direness of the situation: “We don’t know where the global warming will stop,” he explains, “but the worst-case scenario is that Earth would become like its sister planet, Venus, with a temperature of 250 [degrees] centigrade, and raining sulfuric acid. The human race could not survive in those conditions.”

http://campusprogress.org/soundvision/1847/the-11th-hours-ticking-clock

Laurie David Admits to “Error” in kid’s Global Warming Book

Excerpt: Laurie David, writing in her Huffington Post column, defends her new left-wing kid’s book, The Down to Earth Guide to Global Warming. The Hollywood producer turned children’s author is attacking a recent study for catching that a graph used as in her book mislabeled CO2 and temperature in an advantageous way. < > The error that SPPI caught is not minor. I have read David’s book, and she and Cami Gordon do not make much of an effort to prove that mankind’s activities are causing global warming, or that the current trend of temperature change is abnormal when compared to prior cycles. Instead, she takes this for granted and offers a passing reference to a graph with CO2 atmospheric concentration and temperature (p. 18) as proof that economic activity threatens to wipe out penguins and polar bears. < > Of course, since David has previously stated that the goal of her book is to manipulate children, we shouldn’t be surprised that the entire second half is comprised of nothing but tips like this. http://conservativepublisher.blogspot.com/2007/09/laurie-davids-weak-defense-of-her.html

Flashback: Laurie David to Kids: ‘We want you to grow up to be activists’

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-david/to-our-three-daughters_b_48293.html

Polar Bear Extinction Fears Debunked by Arctic Biologist

Excerpt: Fears that two-thirds of the world’s polar bears will die off in the next 50 years are overblown, says Mitchell ­Taylor, the Government of Nunavut’s director of wildlife research. “I think it’s naïve and presumptuous,” Taylor said of the report, released by U.S. Geological Survey on Friday, which warns that many of the world’s polar bears will die as sea ice vanishes due to a warming climate. < > But Taylor says that’s not the case. He points to Davis Strait , one of the southern-most roaming grounds of polar bears. According to the USGS, Davis Strait ought to be among the first places where polar bears will starve due to shrinking seasonal sea ice, which scientists say will deprive the bears of a vital platform to hunt seals. Yet “Davis Strait is crawling with polar bears,” Taylor said. “It’s not safe to camp there. They’re fat. The mothers have cubs. The cubs are in good shape.” < > The Government of Nunavut is conducting a study of the Davis Strait bear population. Results of the study won’t be released until 2008, but Taylor says it appears there are some 3,000 bears in an area – a big jump from the current estimate of about 850 bears. “That’s not theory. That’s not based on a model. That’s observation of reality,” he says. < > Taylor characterizes much of the public discussion over, as one headline has called it, “the appalling fate of the polar bear,” as “hysteria.” Taylor admits he does not see eye to eye with many other polar bear biologist, many of whom have expressed concern over whether polar bears will survive in a warmer climate. “Unlike all the others, I live in the north. My friends and neighbours are Nunavummiut,” he said. “I’m talking to people about polar bears all the time.”

http://www.nunatsiaq.com/news/nunavut/70914_498.html

Arctic Expert Debunks Man-made Global Warming Fears

(Note: Physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the former director of both University of Alaska Fairbanks ’ Geophysical Institute and International Arctic Research Center who has twice been named “1000 Most Cited Scientists”, )

Excerpt: In fact, IPCC scientists do not understand the causes of the rapid increase of temperature from 1910 to 1945; or the decrease from 1945 to 1975, when CO2 levels were rising. Without understanding these recent changes, it is premature for the IPCC to jump to the conclusion that CO2 is the main cause of the last 30 years of global warming. Many people claim scientists proved the greenhouse effect with models run on supercomputers. But a supercomputer is not a crystal ball. Scientists merely enter observed (or expected) CO2 amounts into a computer and, using an algorithm, a projection emerges. No computer can accurately represent such a gigantic system as the Earth with all its unknown processes, such as the causes of the medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age. Therefore, no supercomputer, no matter how powerful, is able to prove definitively a simplistic hypothesis that says the greenhouse effect is responsible for warming. Most people, including scientists who specialize in climatology, are not aware of this weakness. In fact, the whole science of climate change based on supercomputers and algorithmic models is still in its infancy. A supercomputer cannot provide an approximate estimate of the temperature in 2050 or 2100 because scientists are not able to instruct it with all the the unknown processes that may be at play. Any conclusions drawn from such results — which may be seen as nothing more than an academic exercise — cannot and should not serve as hard facts on which to base major international policies.

http://mobile2.wsj.com/beta2/htmlsite/html_article.php?id=1&CALL_URL=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118954539363624201.html?

Meteorologist Craig James Debunks claims on Northwest Passage

The headline in this press release from the European Space Agency reads “Satellites witness lowest Arctic ice coverage in history”. In history! That sounds like a long time. However, when you read the article you find “history” only goes back to 28 years, to 1979. That is when satellites began monitoring Arctic Sea ice. The article also says “the Northwest Passage – a long-sought short cut between Europe and Asia that has been historically impassable.” I guess these people flunked history class. It has been open several times in history, without ice breakers. The first known successful navigation by ship was in 1905.

http://blogs.woodtv.com/?cat=11

Kyoto projects harm ozone layer: U.N. official

Excerpt: The biggest emissions-cutting projects under the Kyoto Protocol on global warming have directly contributed to an increase in the production of gases that destroy the ozone layer, a senior U.N. official says. In addition, evidence suggests that the same projects, in developing countries, have deliberately raised their emissions of greenhouse gases only to destroy these and therefore claim more carbon credits, said Stanford University ‘s Michael Wara.

http://www.reuters.com/article/email/idUSL137011320070813?sp=true

Waste at Starbucks: Coating on coffee cups puts lid on recycling

Excerpt: Starbucks goes through roughly 2.3 billion paper cups a year and touts its national award for using cups made of 10 percent recycled material. The sleeves on the cups even plead, “Help us help the planet.” But don’t be confused. Starbucks promotes recycling on its cups, but the cups themselves aren’t recyclable here or in most other cities nationwide. “Well, they tricked me,” said Nicole Mejias, 22, a self-described Starbucks freak. “I immediately associate recycling with Starbucks because of their cups. That’s so hypocritical. I would have never guessed” that the cups weren’t easily recyclable. The reason: The plastic coating that keeps the cup from leaking also prevents it from being recycled with other paper products. That could be overcome, but it would cost more. Anything can be recycled, but “The system is not designed to take the individual Starbucks cups,” said Steve Sargent, director of recycling for Rumpke Recycling, Columbus ‘ largest recycler.

Waste Management, North America ‘s largest recycler, won’t take the cups, either. But many employees have been telling customers otherwise. They say their Seattle-based employer never made the situation clear.

“I totally thought the cups were recyclable. I think almost everyone did,” said Melanie O’Brien, an Otterbein College student studying environmental initiatives who has worked at Starbucks.

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/09/17/starbucks.ART_ART_09-17-07_A1_IF7U38O.html?sid=101

Gore charges $25,000 per person for meet-and-greet in Australia

Excerpt: Mr Gore made his comments after reporters were asked to leave the lunch venue. Despite the cost, lunch in the 700-seat room at the Sydney Convention Centre was a sell-out, as is tomorrow’s event in Melbourne . VIP packages, which included a spot close to Mr Gore and a meet-and-greet with him, cost $25,000. < > “It’s [the Arctic ] melting 10 times faster than previously recorded. Experts are now saying that if we don’t act with urgency, the entire ice cap could be completely gone in less than 23 years.”

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/paying-dearly-to-hear-gores-climate-story/2007/09/20/1189881602765.html

Cap-and-Trade Could Cost Average Family $10,800 in Lost Income

Excerpt: A cap-and-trade scheme for controlling greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) would impose significant economic costs on the U.S. economy and is not a sound policy response to current concerns about global warming, says renown economist Arthur Laffer in a new study released today. “Dr. Laffer’s analysis is another death knell for the cap-and-trade approach to addressing concerns over carbon dioxide emissions,” said Steven Milloy, executive director of the Free Enterprise Education Institute (FEEI), the nonprofit group sponsoring the study. “The Department of Energy, Congressional Budget Office and, now, Dr. Laffer have all concluded that cap- and-trade would be disastrous for the U.S. economy,” added Milloy.

http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-17-2007/0004664103&EDATE=

Climate change as an excuse to ‘tax the [bleep] out of us’

Excerpt: Christopher Alleva On Saturday, the Wall Street Journal featured a discussion with Michael O’Leary, CEO of low fare Irish airline, Ryanair. Portrayed as kind of a swashbuckler, O’Leary offered up an interesting array of comments on the airline industry and the regulatory environment, but he saved up his most scathing attacks for the new climate change taxes with which Britain is hitting the airlines. His profanity-laced tirade regarding these taxes is right on the money, literally! Mention airlines and carbon dioxide in the same sentence, and he begins peppering his language with four-letter words. Earlier this year, before becoming Britain ‘s prime minister, Gordon Brown raised taxes on air travel to and from the U.K. The then-Treasury chief’s stated purpose was fighting climate change. Mr. O’Leary, whose airline serves more than a dozen British airports, demurs: “He just raised taxes on airlines. It has [bleep]-all to do with climate change! We’ve written several letters . . . to the Treasury, asking what the money’s going to be spent on. We still haven’t gotten a reply.” They can’t reply because that money went straight to the general fund to pay for pensions and the national health system! O’Leary wasn’t done yet, laying bare, the whole global warming business for the fraud that it is. “…the problem with all this environmental claptrap . . . it’s a convenient excuse for politicians to just start taxing people. Some of these guilt-laden, middle-class liberals think it’s somehow good: ‘Oh, that’s my contribution to the environment.’ It’s not. You’re just being robbed–it’s just highway [bleeping] robbery.” He observes that passenger airlines are responsible for only 2% of carbon dioxide emissions world-wide: “It’s less than marine transport, and yet I don’t see anyone [saying], you know, ‘Let’s tax the [bleep] out of the ferries.’ ”

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

Greenhouse gas mandates burden poor

Excerpt: the Edison Power Research Institute issued a report that provided an economic analysis of California ‘s climate initiatives — a prototype of the one by which Florida is now modeled. The EPRI says cumulative costs to the California economy, just to meet its 2020 targets, could range from a hefty $104 billion to $367 billion and lead to a future of severe electricity shortages in the state. Put another way, the policy would cost every California household a staggering $31,900, or about two-thirds of one year’s median income for all residents. This would even be worse for blacks and Hispanics, where the costs would be about 90 percent of one year’s household income. The EPRI further states that poorer households in California would bear a much larger burden relative to their income than would wealthier households. While all consumers would face persistently higher energy and energy-induced prices, the impact of these cost-of-living increases is far heavier on families earning $30,000 than on families earning more than $1 million a year. For the record, only 7 percent of California ‘s population is African-American, as compared with nearly 16 percent in Florida — and most Florida residents who are older than 65 live on fixed incomes. These are, sadly, the people who are often most susceptible to the economic harm these climate change policies would most assuredly spawn.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-green18forumnbsep18,0,6651714.story

Wacky weather may bring summer snow to Sierra Nevada

Excerpt: Snow? In the summer? It’s possible this week in the Sierra Nevada , just days before fall officially arrives.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_6936099?source=rss&nclick_check=1

What’s the carbon footprint of a potato?

Excerpt: Walkers Crisps is the first firm to put carbon footprint figures on its products, with nine more companies set to follow. How are these figures calculated? On taking a food item off a supermarket shelf, consumers can instantly read in detail the impact it will have on the body. But what about the effect on the planet?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7002450.stm

McDonald’s waste to power buildings

Excerpt: Buildings such as hospitals and theatres will be powered by rubbish from McDonald’s restaurants in a new pilot scheme. Eleven fast-food restaurants in Sheffield, Rotherham and Barnsley, South Yorkshire , will take part in the initiative, which will turn waste into electricity and heating for 130 buildings in the area.The scheme will save each restaurant from sending 100 tonnes of refuse to landfill each year and could be rolled out across the country if successful.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/mcdonalds+waste+to+power+buildings/819372

Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted

Excerpt: Statistically speaking, science suffers from an excess of significance. Overeager researchers often tinker too much with the statistical variables of their analysis to coax any meaningful insight from their data sets. “People are messing around with the data to find anything that seems significant, to show they have found something that is new and unusual,” Dr. Ioannidis said. In the U. S. , research is a $55-billion-a-year enterprise that stakes its credibility on the reliability of evidence and the work of Dr. Ioannidis strikes a raw nerve. In fact, his 2005 essay “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” remains the most downloaded technical paper that the journal PLoS Medicine has ever published. < > Findings that have been refuted can linger in the scientific literature for years to be cited unwittingly by other researchers, compounding the errors.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118972683557627104.html?mod=hps_us_editors_picks

Reuters: Wooly Mammoth Dung Speeds Global Warming

Excerpt: But Zimov, a scientist who for almost 30 years has studied climate change in Russia ‘s Arctic , believes that as this organic matter becomes exposed to the air it will accelerate global warming faster than even some of the most pessimistic forecasts. “This will lead to a type of global warming which will be impossible to stop,” he said. < > A United Nations report in June said there was at yet no sign of widespread melting of permafrost that could stoke global warming, but noted the potential threat. So much gas to spew, so little time.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2007/09/17/reuters-wooly-mammoth-dung-speeds-global-warming

Stupidity will kill us more surely than global warming.

Excerpt: Miss Earth Australia Contestants: So, we could smile to read contestant Snezana declare that “Salinisation (sic) of land is one of the major environemtal (sic) crises facing Australia “, and Kirra warn that “the biggest problem in our enviroment (sic) today is our lack of water”. At worst we’d have wondered how badly we teach English as Angelique demanded help for an “environmnet” in danger, and Natalia wept for an “enviornment (sic) that sustains us”. How cute, these earnest bikini babes, so keen to save something they cannot even spell.

But how scary, too, that many of these contestants want to save this thing they cannot spell from a threat they cannot understand. You see, someone – a few of the girls dobbed in Al Gore – has filled their pretty heads with such wild fears of global warming that poor Amanda now wails that “the human race will eventually become extinct”. Scared silly, like so many children now, by professional panic merchants, it seems there’s nothing these girls won’t now blame on global warming; even tsunamis caused by earthquakes. Christine, for instance, says she’s been worried about global warming “from when the tsunami happened in Thailand back in December 2004”. “Hey! Me too,” squeals Georgina . <>

And I ask again: Who really is making a bigger fool of themselves over global warming; these harmless beauty contestants or our politicians

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22442206-5000117,00.html

Chill Pill: Combat global warming? There are better things we can do for the Earth. (By Pete DuPont)

Excerpt: The National Center for Policy Analysis’s new Global Warming Primer (www.ncpa.org/globalwarming/) shows that over the past 400,000 years, “the Earth’s temperature has consistently risen and fallen hundreds of years prior to increases and declines in CO2 levels” (emphasis added). For example, about half of the global warming increases since the mid-1800s occurred before greenhouse gas emissions began their significant increases after the 1950s, and then temperatures declined well into the 1970s when CO2 levels were increasing. < > Whereas 2,000 people died in the United Kingdom in that heat wave, last year the BBC reported that deaths caused by cold weather in England and Wales were about 25,000 each winter, and 47,000 a year, in the winters of 1998 to 2000. Similarly, in Helsinki , Finland , 55 people die each year from heat and 1,655 from cold.

http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110010626

LA Times Goofs on Math

Here’s what Monday’s editorial claimed:

“A 100-square-mile area of Nevada , if equipped with solar devices, could supply the U.S. with all the power it needs, according to the Energy Department.”

Note: Oops: The difference between “100-square-mile” and “100-mile-square” is massive. It’s the difference between 100 square miles—and 10,000 square miles. Keep in mind, the entire state of Nevada is roughly 110,000 square miles.

LA Times Issues Correction:

Excerpt: An editorial Monday on renewable energy said that a “100-square-mile” area of Nevada , if equipped with solar devices, could meet all of the United States ‘ power needs. It should have said a “100-mile-square” area.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-correx20sep20,0,2360507.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail

Colorado Springs Gazette Cites EPW Reports

Excerpt: The only disasters caused by global warming exist in contrived computer models so unreliable they can’t replicate yesterday’s weather, let alone the next century’s temperatures. Almost daily, new evidence is offered to refute the claims of global warming alarmists.

“An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analysis and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming ‘bites the dust,’ and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be ‘falling apart,’ ” according to U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.

http://www.gazette.com/opinion/warming_27477___article.html/global_trucks.html

One More Reason to Distrust Global Warming Predictions

Excerpt: Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Robert Lee Hotz cautioned us that alarming sloppiness in statistical studies is all too common. He cited a study by Tufts University professor John Ioannidis: “The hotter the field of research the more likely its published findings should be viewed skeptically, he determined.” No one was even attempting to measure Global Mean Temperature (GMT) during the 1880s. The GMT climate record is a statistical re-construction primarily based on modern data, which itself has been shown recently to be subject to systematic error in need of correction.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/one_more_reason_to_distrust_gl.html

New Pacific Research Institute Report Reviews the History of Environmental Alarmism and Its Policy Impact

Excerpt: “A major challenge in developing appropriate responses to legitimate problems is that alarmism catches people’s attention and draws them in,” said Dr. Kaleita. “Alarmism is given more weight than it deserves, as policy makers attempt to appease their constituency and the media.” Examples of poor and self-contradictory policy choices in California include: Taxpayer money spent on a lawsuit against nearly the entire automobile industry in North America to seek damages that have not yet occurred. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard recently promulgated by the governor of California to promote the use of ethanol in the state’s fuel supply. Ethanol reduces fuel efficiency, which means drivers will need to burn more fuel to go the same distance. San Francisco ’s ban on the use of plastic bags in city businesses. In reality, the manufacture of paper bags releases more greenhouse gases than the manufacture of plastic bags.

http://www.pacificresearch.org/publications/id.3301/pub_detail.asp

This blog’s fraternity of AGW denialists (climate realists) would be dismayed to learn that their good friend Al Gore was in Sydney yesterday to open the Financial and Energy Exchange (FEX). Another good friend, Bob Carr introduces the “big man” here.

Their web site states: “FEX Climate Pty Ltd is the carbon and environmental arm of Financial and Energy Exchange Ltd a new platform for trading sustainability and cleantech stocks, financial, energy, carbon and environmental commodities and derivatives. The Financial and Energy Exchange (FEX) is supported by significant international investment and global partners including sharing its headquarters at 5 Bridge Street in Sydney with business news broadcaster CNBC. Internationally renowned derivatives trader, Brian Price, is the founder and CEO of FEX. FEX Climate has been built from the ground up a dedicated group, lead by CEO Fiona Waterhouse, who believes the market has an important role to play in directing investment towards businesses which use and produce sustainable technologies, products and services.”

But the real action was happening quietly up in the grazing paddocks of central Queensland. Bypassing the political debate over recent vegetation legislation and scientific researchers dreaming of a rural carbon market, Terry McCosker has established the CarbonLink company , a sister company, to the well known grazing consultancy, Resource Consulting Services (RCS) . RCS being a big advocate of the somewhat controversial cell grazing technology.

Carbonlink (CL) has developed enough credentials to be part of FEX. CL can estimate soil carbon reserves and their improvement through better grazing management. The company acts as an aggregator combining carbon on offer from various graziers, into packages large enough to be of interest to European or US emitters for a sale through the FEX. In a lead from private enterprise FEX seems to also have bypassed the government debate on possible trading systems.

Despite the Greenhouse Office and Minister McGauran being bearish over the prospects for sequestering carbon in Australian soils, McCosker is upbeat saying that grazing systems have plenty of capability compared to cropping lands, and that there are secondary improvements in pasture production, soil structure, and improved pasture quality resulting in less methane emission from grazing cattle.

CL hopes to have a 100,000 tonnes of CO2 for sale on FEX by Christmas.

CL press release says ” CL is in the process of verifying its first packages of soil carbon from several properties in eastern Australia.”

This carbon is expected to be available for trading in the coming months.

“When people think carbon they usually think trees,” according to CL chief executive, and soil and agribusiness consultant Rod Rush.”

“But in reality 75pc of carbon in and on the earth’s land mass is in the soil. We have a tremendous opportunity to utilise soil’s ability to absorb additional carbon through the right land management practices.”

“There is good evidence to suggest that the practice of cell grazing will facilitate soil carbon sequestration.”

“It is an added bonus of this managed pasture process under which livestock come on and off the pasture in a controlled fashion, with the pasture grazed for short periods, spelled while root reserves rebuild, regrow and are then grazed again.”

“Producers who have made good land use decisions in the past and those who choose to adopt these practices in the future will capitalise on that because soil carbon is poised to become a tradeable resource.”

“The good managers are running their farms in a manner that maximises root deposition in their soils and hence fixes much more soil carbon than is held in soils grazed traditionally.”

“Soil carbon can be measured by soil sampling and analysis and then traded as carbon credits,” he said.
“The bigger the active root matter of pasture, the more carbon is fixed.”

“The great thing is that cell grazing, unlike tree planting as a carbon-fixing option, does not lock up land and make it non-productive.”

“We are still verifying our processes, but CL plans to aggregate carbon, sequestered by groups of producers who commit to grazing management practices, that over the subsequent 10 years will sequester and maintain the resource.”

“For example, a 1pc increase in organic matter over a 10-year period may capture about 50 tonnes of CO2 that is worth about $1,000/ha gross before costs, at current retail prices.”

“There will be a proving period for each producer about how much CO2/hectare is being sequestered, with soils analysed in the first year of a commitment and then measured again in, for example, the 5th and 10th years to calculate any gains. ”

You can listen to McCosker advocate the scheme.

CL is the second carbon accreditation scheme to be launched in Australia over the last year – with Christine Jones launching Western Australia’s Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme (ASCAS) in March 2007.

Of course innovative graziers like Alan Lauder have been advocating carbon grazing incorporating saltbush as a philosophy for land management for over a decade but it’s McCosker who’s trying to break into the big international trading markets.

Industry commentary on rural carbon trading is available here and if you’re really keen rock up to the big carbon farming expo at Mudgee in November 2007. (IPA and denialists apply hard hats before entering these web sites)

So Queensland Country Life ran today with “CARBON: Why there’s real money in dirt”

OK are “dirty” greenhouse deals in dirt the way to go. It’s a long term commitment. Many decades. Does it add up? Are there side effects? Will global warming increase microbial activity and work against the sequestration? Can you realistically account for something you can’t see? How do emitters know what they’ve really got? Do you believe the sampling and science. Has Steve McIntyre audited the system personally? (Or has Hansen adjusted it?)

But it’s innovative. It’s not whinging. Don’t have to put up with touchy forestry types. It has positive land management benefits. It gets a new income stream into remote areas and extensive grazing. It’s free enterprise. And it does unify the city and bush. Needs good science input. It’s Australian high tech low tech hybrid !! Many things I’m passionate about. Oh yea – and it might help with CO2 sequestration too. What’s McCosker up to next – surely this isn’t just the limit – Aaron Edmonds must be out there somewhere.

What do you think: is there money in dirt or is it a dirty deal?

Extracts from the UK Telegraph article: Lorry driver in challenge to Gore school film

A lorry driver is taking the Government to court over a film that he believes is biased and shouldn’t be shown to children in schools

Since ministers regarded the debate as well and truly over, they were “delighted” to send school children a polemic that took as its central thesis the argument that climate change – the increase in global temperatures over the past 50 years – was mainly the result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

This is indeed the view of the IPCC, and most of the world’s climate scientists. But other people disagree.

One of them is Stewart Dimmock, 45, a lorry driver and school governor from Kent. His sons, aged 11 and 14, attend a secondary school in Dover which has presumably received a copy of Mr Gore’s film.

“I care about the environment as much as the next man,” says Mr Dimmock. “However, I am determined to prevent my children from being subjected to political spin in the classroom.”

You might think there ought to be a law against this – and there is. Section 406(1)(b) of the Education Act 1996 says that local education authorities, school governing bodies and head teachers “shall forbid… the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school”.

Mr Dimmock’s lawyers are trying to prevent the film being shown in schools. At this stage, they are asking for permission to challenge the Schools Secretary’s decision to distribute it. This was refused in July after a written application. But if permission is granted at an oral hearing next Thursday, the judge is expected to consider the merits of Mr Dimmock’s application for judicial review straight away.

“Gore has gone on record as saying he believes it is appropriate to over-represent the facts to get his message across,” says Mr Day. “One of the very clear inferences from the Gore film is that areas such as Bangladesh will be under water by the end of the century. He is talking about sea levels rising by 20 feet.”

But this is not backed up by the IPCC, the solicitor says. Their view is that sea levels will rise by 1.3 feet over the next 100 years. A rise of 20ft would require rising temperatures to continue for millennia.

Michael Sparkes, also from the law firm Malletts, adds that Mr Gore’s central premise – that carbon dioxide emissions are causing the recently observed global warming – is taken by the film as proved.

“There is no discussion of the fact that the climate is changing naturally all the time, whether warming or cooling,” he said.

Mr Dimmock’s lawyers will therefore argue that distributing this film to schools is either unlawful under section 406 of the 1996 Act or unlawful because it does not offer the balance required by section 407.

There is a 48-page guidance note.

The current version of this note acknowledges that “teachers have a duty to give a balanced presentation of political issues and to avoid political indoctrination”.

It advises teachers to divide the film into three strands:

Areas where there is undisputed scientific consensus, such as the clear evidence that global temperatures are rising;

Areas where there is a “strong scientific consensus but where a small minority of scientists do not agree”, for example that gas emissions from human activity are the main cause of climate change. “When dealing with such issues teachers may wish to refer to alternative views but make it clear that they do not accord with the weight of scientific opinion,” the Government says; and

Areas where there is political debate, such as how we should respond to climate change. “When addressing these areas, teachers must take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that pupils are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.”

The Schools Department says: “The law does not prevent teachers or schools from showing material which includes expressions of political opinion. But it does require that, when such material is shown, the opinion is presented in a balanced way.”

Mr Day says his client is not satisfied with this. “You have a fundamentally flawed film, scientifically and politically, where the onus is being placed on teachers to draw the thorns and to remedy the defects,” he says. “Is that fair on teachers?”

Whether the written guidance is enough to balance the impact of Mr Gore’s undoubtedly political views will no doubt be at the heart of next week’s hearing. But is the debate over the science of climate change “well and truly over”? Not a chance.

Anne Thompson
NBC Nightly News

Dear Anne,

The NBC Nightly News segment tonight was a classic case of skewed reporting. Why did you not mention that Greenland temps were highest in 1941 or that the 30’s and 40’s were the warmest decades according to multiple peer reviewed studies? Why did you not mention that the rate of warming was twice as fast in the early part of 20th century (long before man-made CO2 could have been responsible?)

Why do you only interview one activist scientist who is an advisor to Gore? There are many ice and sea level experts you could have contacted (many listed in below Senate report)

Why did you do a Greenland ice story by relying on the last 15 years of temperature data?

Please read below and plan on a follow up segment that actually educates the viewers, not one that cherry picks the last 15 years and shows scary maps of flooding.

The segment shown tonight on NBC News is just the standard boiler plate alarmist nonsense. You will probably win many journalism awards with this, (such is the sad state of much of environmental reporting today) but the viewers are being woefully misinformed.

All I am asking is that you simply spend 8 minutes reading up on actual peer-reviewed literature about Greenland. If you had spent those 8 minutes you could have avoided this alarmist and myopic segment tonight.

Can you please address these issues on air and redeem your reporting on global warming? If not, at least try to read up more on global warming in general. You are the chief NBC reporter that covers this issue, the least viewers can expect is a Greenland report that relies on more that the last 15 years of temperature data and one advisor to Gore.

You still need to redeem your reporting from your segment in August about how “denialists” are somehow “well funded.”

NBC News should be doing actual reporting, not just parroting talking points of left-wing green groups like Union of Concerned Scientists.

Please make an effort to improve the level of this climate reporting.

Sincerely,

Marc Morano

More here.

Another one from Marc Morano:

Leonardo Di Caprio talks to USA Weekend Magazine.

Leonardo DiCaprio lives in a “green” house, eats organic food and drinks filtered water instead of bottled. Now he has made an eco-documentary, The 11th Hour, a 91-minute film that he produced and narrated. It opens in the next few weeks around the country. DiCaprio, 32, talks with us about how we affect the Earth and what we can do to change course.

Excerpt: Q: Can the members of this generation become activists, or are they too consumed with entertainment and purchasing power?

“It has to start with things like this documentary. We need to get kids young. That’s where it started with me. I can remember watching documentaries in which I learned about mass extinctions of species in rain forests. That emotionally engaged me as a young kid, and I said to myself, ‘When I grow up, I’d love to make a difference in this field.’

More brainwashing for children?