6 Apr 2010, 5:00pm
Latest Climate News
by admin
leave a comment

Coldest Siberian Winter On Record

By Will Stewart, UK Daily Mail, 24th March 2010 [here]

Russia’s top weatherman’s blow to climate change lobby as he says winter in Siberia may be COLDEST on record

In a new blow to the climate change lobby, Russia’s top weatherman today announced that the winter now drawing to a close in Siberia may turn out to be the coldest on record.

“The winter of 2009-10 was one of the most severe in European part of Russia for more than 30 years, and in Siberia it was perhaps the record breaking coldest ever,” said Dr Alexander Frolov, head of state meteorological service Rosgidromet.

Statistics are still being analysed in detail, but it is known that in western Siberia the mean temperature was minus 23.2C, with more colder days than in previous years.

Some 63 days were colder than minus 25C and 39 days below minus 30C.

For this part of Siberia, this represents the coldest conditions in 40 years and the second harshest winter in 110 years.

Equivalent statistics for colder eastern Siberia have not been issued yet. … [more]

6 Apr 2010, 4:47pm
Latest Climate News
by admin
leave a comment

U.S. EPA Goes Unconstitutional: Time to Rein in a Rogue Agency

by Marlo Lewis, MasterResource, March 30, 2010 [here]

When did Congress tell the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to license California and other states to adopt non-federal fuel economy standards within their borders? When did Congress tell EPA to act as co-equal or even senior partner with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in setting fuel-economy standards for the auto industry?

When did Congress tell EPA to establish climate and energy policy for the nation? And when did Congress tell EPA to “tailor,” that is amend, the Clean Air Act to avoid an administrative debacle of its own making?

The answer, of course, is never, never, never, and never. EPA is flouting federal law and the Constitution. … [more]

6 Apr 2010, 4:42pm
Latest Climate News
by admin
leave a comment

NASA plans big boost to climate research budget

By Marc Kaufman, Washington Post, April 1, 2010 [here]

NASA officials laid out plans Wednesday to boost spending on climate research substantially over the next five years, to make up for cutbacks during the Bush administration.

Edward Weiler, the agency’s associate administrator for science, said that NASA’s Earth Science budget will get a $2.4 billion, or 62 percent, increase through 2015. By that point, the program will have launched as many as 10 new missions, collecting information about ocean temperatures, ice coverage, ozone depletion and the central question of how much carbon dioxide is being released through human activities.

The budget increase reflects both a campaign promise by President Obama to focus far more on the threat of climate change and what NASA officials called a “philosophical shift” on the issue. … [more]

See also:

Senators Demand Explanation of NASA’s Flawed Climate Data [here]

NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits [here]

Note: NASA has been drinking the global warming corn squeezings for a long time. That Obama — he’s never seen a deficit he couldn’t top. Never let an economic crisis go to waste when you can make it worse!!!

6 Apr 2010, 4:34pm
Latest Climate News
by admin
leave a comment

US Navy to Power Fleet with Biofuel

USDA Office of Communications, 04/06/2010 [here]

Navy Region Hawaii Environmental Public Affairs

Honolulu, Hawaii - Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan and Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations & Environment Jackalyne Pfannenstiel today kicked off the first of several energy forums to look at ways to increase biofuels production and meet the Navy’s renewable energy needs. The forum comes as a result of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) recently signed by the USDA and the Department of the Navy to encourage the development of advanced biofuels and other renewable energy systems.

“As we continue to expand efforts to build a clean energy economy, create new jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we can use the Navy’s fleet as a catalyst to increase demand for biofuels and spur economic opportunity in rural communities throughout the country,” said Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan. “President Obama has an ambitious renewable energy agenda, and the USDA/Navy partnership we are highlighting today is a critical step to enhance America’s energy security.”

“The Department of the Navy is very energized about the partnership with the Department of Agriculture,” said Navy Assistant Secretary Jackalyne Pfannenstiel. “This collaborative effort will enable us to reduce our petroleum consumption and increase our alternative energy opportunities. The Navy and Marine Corps’ warfighting capability will benefit through a more secure energy future.” … [more]

Note: The US Navy goes green! Or gets drunk on corn squeezings, one of the two. I feel much safer — do you?

6 Apr 2010, 4:24pm
Latest Climate News
by admin
leave a comment

$99 Billion Spent By Feds On Global Warming Hoax

Congressional Budget Office Director’s Blog, March 26th, 2010 [here]

Federal Climate Change Programs

As awareness of global climate change has expanded over past decades, Congresses and Administrations have committed several billion dollars annually to studying climate change and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide. Most of that spending is done by the Department of Energy (DOE) and by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, although a dozen other federal agencies also participate. The effort has included funding science and technology, creating tax preferences, and assisting other countries in their attempts to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions. In a study released this afternoon, CBO examines the government’s commitment of resources to those purposes. The study presents information on current spending and analyzes recent patterns and trends in spending.

From 1998 through 2009, appropriations for agencies’ work related to climate change totaled about $99 billion (in 2009 dollars); more than a third of that sum-$35.7 billion by CBO’s estimation-was provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (see the figure below). During that period, the nation’s commitment to climate-related technology development increased significantly, as has the forgone revenue attributable to tax preferences. Funding for climate science and international assistance, by contrast, stayed roughly constant. … [more]

Note: 99 billion dollars to waste, 99 billion to waste, take one down and flush it away, 98 billion dollars to waste…

4 Apr 2010, 1:21pm
Latest Climate News
by admin
leave a comment

Climate Science’s Dirtiest Secret

by Doug L. Hoffman, The Resilient Earth, 04/04/2010 [here]

With the climate science party-line case for global warming rapidly unwinding there is growing interest by researchers from outside the climate change community in applying advanced statistical techniques to climate data. It has long been recognized that statistical acumen has been lacking among mainstream climate scientists. This dirty little secret was first publicly disclosed during Congressional hearings regarding the 2006 Wegman Report. Even newer analyses have revealed that many of the predictions made by the IPCC reports and other global warming boosters are wrong, often because inappropriate statistical techniques were applied.

The Wegman Report was the result of an ad hoc committee of independent statisticians who were asked by a congressional committee to assess the statistical information presented in the Michael Mann “Hockey Stick” papers. Dr. Edward Wegman, a prominent statistics professor at George Mason University and chairman of the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, headed the panel of experts who examined the use of statistics in climate science. They found the climate science community was far too insular and did not consult with experts in statistics outside of their own field.

This self imposed isolation led, in the opinion of the committee, to misuse of statistics and a peer review process that only included the close-knit circle of researchers at the center of the global warming controversy. Wegman stated in testimony before the energy and commerce committee: “I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.” More on the Wegman Report can be found in Chapter 13 of The Resilient Earth.

Nowhere is this “dirty secret” more prevalent than in climate science. I have already reviewed two recent statistical analyses of climate change that find much different answers and draw radically different conclusions than mainstream climate science. This post is the third in the series of articles on statistical analysis and global warming. In this article I will discuss another data analysis technique that is used to deal with non-stationary data of the type often associated with Earth’s climate system -— empirical mode decomposition. …

It could also be that some climate scientists are simply hedging their bets with this cooling trend stuff. Given that the misapplication and misinterpretation of statistics are climate science’s dirtiest secret, little credence can be given to any predictions about future climatic conditions. They may as well be casting horoscopes and reading the entrails of sheep. … [more]

Not So Veiled Threats of Violence from Green “Peace”

Gene from Greenpeace, Greenpeace Blog, March 31, 2010 [here]

The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.

If you’re one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let’s talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.

If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

And we be many, but you be few.

Note: Gene is a craven coward. He hides his identity while spewing threats. He does have the full support of Greenpeace executives, however. The Greenpeace USA 2009-2010 Board is

Donald K. Ross, Chair
Sharyle Patton
Valerie Denney
Daniel Rudie
David Hunter
Jigar Shah
David Pellow
Bryony Schwan
Elizabeth Gilchrist (Treasurer)

just in case the FBI wants to arrest these eco-terrorists for their aiding and abetting violence and making threats of violence.

3 Apr 2010, 2:02pm
Latest Climate News
by admin
leave a comment

More States Sue EPA as Agency Issues First Climate Change Regulations

FOXNews.com, April 02, 2010 [here]

The battle over global warming escalated this week with the Environmental Protection Agency issuing its first rules ever on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions even as more states lined up to legally challenge the new regulations.

On Thursday, the heads of the Transportation Department and the EPA signed final rules setting fuel efficiency standards for model years 2012-2016, with a goal of achieving by 2016 the equivalent of 35.5 miles per gallon combined for cars and trucks, an increase of nearly 10 mpg over current standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The rules come after 12 states joined petitions filed by Virginia, Alabama and Texas against the EPA for ruling in December that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide endanger human health — a ruling that cleared the path for the agency to start issuing mandatory regulations to reduce them.

“While we made the decision to intervene based on what was in the best interests of Virginia and her citizens, it is gratifying to have the support of so many other states,” Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli said recently in a written statement.

The lawsuit seeks to force the EPA to reopen hearings on its December finding or block the regulations. … [more]

3 Apr 2010, 2:01pm
Latest Climate News
by admin
leave a comment

Climate Change Act has the biggest ever bill

By Christopher Booker, UK Telegraph, 03 Apr 2010 [here]

One of the best-kept secrets of British politics – although it is there for all to see on a Government website – is the cost of what is by far the most expensive piece of legislation ever put through Parliament. Every year between now and 2050, acccording to Ed Miliband’s Department for Energy and Climate Change (Decc), the Climate Change Act is to cost us all up to £18.3 billion – £760 for every household in the country – as we reduce our carbon emissions by 80 per cent.

Last Thursday – with northern Britain again under piles of global warming – another tranche of regulations came into force, as this measure begins to take effect. New road tax rules mean that to put a larger, more CO2?-emitting car on the road will now cost £950. New “feed-in” subsidies for small-scale “renewables” mean that the installers of solar panels will be paid up to eight times the going rate for their miserable amount of electricity to be fed into the grid, with the overall bill for this scheme estimated eventually to be billions a year.

Not the least bizarre of the Government’s strategies, however, is Decc’s new Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) scheme, requiring up to 30,000 of our largest energy users, such as ministries, councils, universities, hospitals, supermarket chains (and even “monasteries and nunneries”), to pay to register with the Environment Agency. Some 5,000 of them, using more than “6,000 megawatt hours” of electricity each year (equivalent to the needs of 1,250 homes), will then have to carry out a cumbersome audit of their carbon footprint, using “three different metrics”, in order to pay £12 for each ton of CO2 they emit – at a total initial cost estimated at £1.4 billion a year. This will eventually be contributed by all of us, either through taxes or, for instance, whenever we visit Tesco. … [more]

2 Apr 2010, 4:41pm
Latest Climate News
by admin
leave a comment

When the Germans give up on AGW you really do know it’s all over…

By James Delingpole, UK Telegraph, April 1st, 2010 [here]

No people on earth are more righteously Green than the Germans. They built the foundations and set the tone of the modern Green movement in, ahem, the 1930s. They invented the phrase Atomkraft Nein Danke. They were the first country to allow nasty, dangerous Sixties eco-radicals to reinvent themselves as respectable politicians. They were the first place to buy, wholesale, into the solar power con, which is why so many of their rooves – especially on churches – shimmer and glow like reflective-coated crusties at a mid-Nineties rave, while the German taxpayer is ruing the day his government ever chose to subsidise (Achtung Herr Cameron!) this fantastically pointless scheme… (Hat tip: Robert Groezinger, et al)

So when the Germans say “Auf Wiedersehn AGW” it really is time for the rest of the world to sit up and take notice. And that’s exactly what they just have said. See for yourself in this tear-inducing glorious feature in one of their leading newspapers.

Der Spiegel has done a number on AGW - one of the best and most comprehensive I’ve read in any newspaper anywhere – and it could hardly be more damning. … [more]

31 Mar 2010, 11:31pm
Latest Climate News
by admin
leave a comment

Senators Demand Explanation of NASA’s Flawed Climate Data

By Jeremy A. Kaplan, FOXNews.com, March 31, 2010 [here]

Not everyone is sipping the global warming Kool-Aid.

Concerns about the validity of NASA’s climate research are being raised following revelations that the space agency admitted its data was less accurate than other weather trackers’. Disturbed by these reports, as well as the growing Climate-gate scandal that has left global-warming theorists reeling, Senators John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and David Vitter (R-La.) have written a letter to space agency chief Charles Bolden demanding answers.

“The American people deserve to learn the truth about the data,” Barrasso told FoxNews.com, stressing the risks of basing public policy on science that remains largely undecided.

FoxNews.com has obtained an advance copy of the letter - the third that Barrasso, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Vitter, ranking member of the Committee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, have written in the months following the Climate-gate scandal.

Writing that “American data is partially derived from the corrupted data set that has been criticized as too political and unscientific as a result of the Climate-gate scandal,” the senators have invited Bolden to testify before the Senate on the credibility of NASA’s data. … [more]

31 Mar 2010, 12:13am
Latest Climate News
by admin
leave a comment

NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits

By Blake Snow, FOXNews.com, March 30, 2010 [here]

NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can’t tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA’s temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.

E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) — the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails — and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center.

The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA’s data “was more accurate” than other climate-change data sets, NASA’s Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said “the National Climatic Data Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,” admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.

“My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and [East Anglia] data for the global means,” Ruedy told the reporter.

“NASA’s temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA,” wrote Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Horner is skeptical of NCDC’s data as well, stating plainly: “Three out of the four temperature data sets stink.”

Global warming critics call this a crucial blow to advocates’ arguments that minor flaws in the “Climate-gate” data are unimportant, since all the major data sets arrive at the same conclusion — that the Earth is getting warmer. But there’s a good reason for that, the skeptics say: They all use the same data. … [more]

30 Mar 2010, 2:17pm
Latest Climate News
by admin
leave a comment

Global Warming Advocates Threaten Blizzard of Lawsuits

By Gene J. Koprowski, FOXNews.com, March 29, 2010 [here]

Environmentalists, unable to squeeze “cap and trade” rules through the U.S. Senate, have a new strategy for combating what they believe is man-made global warming:

They’re going to sue.

They’re revving up their briefs and getting ready to shop for judges who will be sympathetic to their novel claim that the companies they believe contribute to global warming are a “public nuisance.”

The environmentalists allege that individual companies are responsible for climate change because they have emitted greenhouse gases during the course of their operations. Those gases, they say, have “harmed” them by fostering Hurricane Katrina, eroding the shorelines of America’s coasts and causing global warming.

“People have a right to sue for redress of grievances,” said Lee A. DeHihns III, a partner with law firm Alston & Bird’s environmental and land development group and a former associate general counsel with the EPA. He said global warming is a “public nuisance,” just like a neighbor with a loud stereo. “You can sue for an intentional infliction of harm, a nuisance,” said DeHihns, whose firm is consulting with defendants in these types of cases.

The lawyers seek a “consent decree,” an agreement from the defendants to stop causing global warming — even though the theory that mankind causes global warming is hardly settled science.

“There is some dispute whether greenhouse gas is a source of global warming at all,” said John Heintz, chairman of the Washington D.C. law firm Kelly Drye Warren. “Even if these defendants were to stop emitting greenhouse gases altogether, it is exceedingly unlikely that the severity or frequency of hurricanes will be affected. Or that the sea coasts of Alaska will change.”

There currently are three lawsuits in different parts of the U.S. pushing this agenda, and more cases could be filed soon. Environmental law experts say one of the cases may make it to the U.S. Supreme Court in the coming years:

- Connecticut v. AEP. Plaintiffs sued electric power producers to cap and then reduce their carbon emissions. Public nuisance tort law suit.

- Corner v. Murphy Oil. Plaintiffs sued oil company, blaming the energy producer for causing Hurricane Katrina. Plaintiffs are seeking damages for the hurricane.

- Kivalina v. Exxon. Alaska natives sued oil companies and power companies and coal company alleging that greenhouse gases they emit contribute to global warming and threaten their existence.

Some lawyers objects strongly to this line of attack. Richard O. Faulk, chairman of the litigation department at Gardere Wynne Sewell, objects to the legal tack and is filing a court brief in the Corner v. Murphy Oil case.

“The three cases are all based on the ancient tort of public nuisance,” Faulk told FoxNews.com. “It’s a centuries-old claim that has, until now, always been used to deal with localized activities, caused by a limited number of identifiable defendants.

“The global warming cases erroneously expand the theory to planetary dimensions and apply it arbitrarily to an isolated group of parties, as opposed to the universe of actors, animals, and events such as volcanism that release CO2 and allegedly cause global warming.” … [more]

30 Mar 2010, 8:29am
Latest Climate News
by admin
leave a comment

Freeing Energy Policy From The Climate Change Debate

Environmentalists have long sought to use the threat of catastrophic global warming to persuade the public to embrace a low-carbon economy. But recent events, including the tainting of some climate research, have shown the risks of trying to link energy policy to climate science.

by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Mhellenberger, Environment 360, 29 Mar 2010 [here]

The 20-year effort by environmentalists to establish climate science as the primary basis for far-reaching action to decarbonize the global energy economy today lies in ruins. Backlash in reaction to “Climategate” and recent controversies involving the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s 2007 assessment report are but the latest evidence that such efforts have evidently failed.

While the urge to blame fossil-fuel-funded skeptics for this recent bad turn of events has proven irresistible for most environmental leaders and pundits, forward-looking greens wishing to ascertain what might be salvaged from the wreckage would be well advised to look closer to home. Climate science, even at its most uncontroversial, could never motivate the remaking of the entire global energy economy. Efforts to use climate science to threaten an apocalyptic future should we fail to embrace green proposals, and to characterize present-day natural disasters as terrifying previews of an impending day of reckoning, have only served to undermine the credibility of both climate science and progressive energy policy. … [more]

26 Mar 2010, 1:56pm
Latest Climate News
by admin
1 comment

The Climate Swindle

By Todd Wynn, Cascade Policy Institute, March 26, 2010 [here]

Are you worried about your carbon footprint hurting the earth? Don’t worry. Now climate doomsayers can sleep easy at night. For a fee a carbon offset provider will gladly funnel your money into earth friendly projects aimed to reduce greenhouse gases, such as planting trees in Ecuador or supporting a wind farm in Texas. But are carbon offset providers really delivering what they claim? Studies of international carbon offset schemes have revealed examples of widespread fraud and abuse. And now, investigations into two of the most prominent carbon offset providers in the U.S. have revealed that neither of them actually offers real reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Many environmental organizations and governments around the globe advocate restricting fossil fuel consumption and using carbon offsets via a cap-and-trade-type model to decrease overall human-emitted GHGs. This trend is born of fears of human-induced climate change, despite the lack of any statistically significant global warming since 1995. …

The implications are very clear. If offsets do not result in real, verifiable reductions in GHGs, then not only would billions (if not trillions) of American dollars be completely wasted, but the goals (whether they be of merit or not) of such a cap-and-trade program could not be reached. The climate policy would accomplish nothing but inflicting significant economic hardships upon recession-ridden Americans.

Cascade Policy Institute’s research has concluded that would be the case, exposing the failures by the nation’s leading carbon offset providers, the Bonneville Environmental Foundation (BEF) and The Climate Trust, which undermine the entire carbon offset industry.

The two key principles of carbon offsets are additionality (i.e., a project would not be completed without carbon offset funds) and proper monitoring/verification of results. If these two principles are not met in entirety, then the offset is not a real reduction in GHG emissions, according to industry experts. Cascade’s audit of BEF and The Climate Trust projects reveal that they failed to prove additionality or to show proper monitoring or verification for all of their claimed carbon offsets. …

The investigation revealed carbon offsets funding Native American canoe journeys, wind projects that had already been built, and passing out bicycle helmets. Accordingly, offset purchasers are not buying a real, verifiable product, though they do get to feel as though they are reducing GHGs so long as the mirage stays in place. …

Currently, consumers should not have any confidence that their purchase of carbon offsets has any effect on GHG emissions whatsoever.

The problems that plague the carbon offset concept most likely will never be solved. Even the Federal Trade Commission, which investigates cases of market deception, warns that carbon offsets carry a high risk of fraud, yet all climate policies introduced on the state and national level call for the use of carbon offsets. Although it may allow a few climate hypochondriacs to sleep well at night, billions of dollars will be wasted in projects that accomplish nothing and only serve to enrich the few companies that successfully have duped politicians into forcing citizens to purchase a bunch of hot air. … [more]

  • For the benefit of the interested general public, W.I.S.E. herein presents news clippings from other media outlets. Please be advised: a posting here does not necessarily constitute or imply W.I.S.E. agreement with or endorsement of any of the content or sources.
  • Colloquia

  • Commentary and News

  • Contact

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Recent News Clippings

  • Recent Comments

  • Meta