Yup, nothing like the best qualified for the job:
Energy Secretary Steven Chu may be a Nobel laureate Ph.D. in physics, but his first forays into energy policy suggest he’s a neophyte when it comes to the ways of Washington.
At a forum with reporters on Thursday, the head of the department that has traditionally taken the lead on global oil-market policy, was asked what message the Obama administration had for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries at its meeting next month.
“I’m not the administration,” the Cabinet secretary replied. “I will be speaking and learning more about this in order to figure out what the U.S. position should be and what the president’s position is.”
Chu, who is still without a deputy, said he feels “like I’ve been dumped into the deep end of the pool” on oil policy.
He may be a Nobel laureate, but it is obvious that he isn’t at all prepared for the job of Energy Secretary. How, given his obvious lack of knowledge about oil, can he put a comprehensive energy plan together for the US? Well, he wasn’t brought in to consider oil – he’s going to be the “green guy”. Oil, coal and other Neanderthal energy sources aren’t really something he’s concerned himself with. But now, he is the man.
Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, huh? Knowing all of that certainly reassures you that his priorities are going to be what is best for the US and not best for the agenda, doesn’t it?
It seems like everyday more and more is discovered that affects the climate and it is clear those touting the “science” of AGW being settled were clueless about it. For instance:
Whether devastating faults, dank caves or mud cracks on a drying desert plain, Earth’s surface is riddled with fractures.
Now a new study had found that the cracks exhale large quantities of gas, perhaps enough to affect global warming.
Now, I’m not saying this overturns their arguments, but one thing I can say without contradiction is this isn’t modeled in their climate models. And, while at this point there is still not enough information to determine if it is indeed enough to affect global warming, its obvious the AGW crowd didn’t even know this problem existed.
Here’s what scientists found:
Noam Weisbrod of Ben Gurion University of the Negev and a team of researchers monitored a crack about 2 meters long (6.5 feet) and 1 meter (3.3 feet) deep for two years in the Negev Desert is Israel. Each night, they watched as warm air in the crack drew water vapor out of the surrounding rock, and lifted it into the cold evening air.
If air in the crack is just 7 degrees warmer than the ambient temperature, it is buoyant enough to rise out of any crack in the ground bigger than 1 centimeter (0.4 inch) across, bringing with it any gases that leak out of the surrounding soil or rock.
But the team was surprised to find that the crack they studied gave off water vapor up to 200 times faster than areas without fractures.
The next time one of the AGW crowd tries the “settled science” canard, remind them of this little beauty and ask them how it affects the theory. I hope you enjoy the sound of crickets chirping.
Unproven science is apparently going to drive an administrative (instead of legislative) push to regulate carbon dioxide. In the middle of a “crisis” which President Obama calls the worst since the 1930s, the EPA is apparently going to drastically raise the cost to do business in critical sectors:
The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.
The decision, which most likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would have a profound impact on transportation, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power. It could accelerate the progress of energy and climate change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States’ negotiating position at United Nations climate talks set for December in Copenhagen.
Note that none of the “change” appears to be good for the US or its consumers. Instead, we’re likely to see it put even further stress on families on the margin and drive more layoffs and higher unemployment. But the world will love us, or at least the UN.
I don’t think there’s any question at the moment as to whether Obama is going to govern as a centrist or liberal, is there?
Nice biased environmentalist metaphor, isn’t it?
You know we see these sorts of stories all the time, and because they’re just people using causes to attempt to change our behavior, we don’t pay them the attention they deserve. But, if any of the things associated with what you’re about to read were to become law, suddenly choices and amounts of beef could easily be rationed to “save the planet”. Add a little health care legislation and it’s a lock.
When it comes to global warming, hamburgers are the Hummers of food, scientists say.
Simply switching from steak to salad could cut as much carbon as leaving the car at home a couple days a week.
That’s because beef is such an incredibly inefficient food to produce and cows release so much harmful methane into the atmosphere, said Nathan Pelletier of Dalhousie University in Canada.
Pelletier is one of a growing number of scientists studying the environmental costs of food from field to plate.
By looking at everything from how much grain a cow eats before it is ready for slaughter to the emissions released by manure, they are getting a clearer idea of the true costs of food.
The livestock sector is estimated to account for 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and beef is the biggest culprit.
Even though beef only accounts for 30 percent of meat consumption in the developed world it’s responsible for 78 percent of the emissions, Pelletier said Sunday at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
That’s because a single kilogram of beef produces 16 kilograms carbon dioxide equivalent emissions: four times higher than pork and more than ten times as much as a kilogram of poultry, Pelletier said.
If people were to simply switch from beef to chicken, emissions would be cut by 70 percent, Pelletier said.
Another part of the problem is people are eating far more meat than they need to.
“Meat once was a luxury in our diet,” Pelletier said. “We used to eat it once a week. Now we eat it every day.”
If meat consumption in the developed world was cut from the current level of about 90 kilograms a year to the recommended level of 53 kilograms a year, livestock related emissions would fall by 44 percent.
The way things are going it wouldn’t surprise me one day to see PSAs like the Chik-fil-A commercials saying, “Eat More Chikin” and cut emissions by 70% – it’s the law!
Some real anger is welling up down under against some “green” laws which prevented residents from taking prudent fire control measures which may have prevented both property destruction and deaths:
ANGRY residents last night accused local authorities of contributing to the bushfire toll by failing to let residents chop down trees and clear up bushland that posed a fire risk.
During question time at a packed community meeting in Arthurs Creek on Melbourne’s northern fringe, Warwick Spooner — whose mother Marilyn and brother Damien perished along with their home in the Strathewen blaze — criticised the Nillumbik council for the limitations it placed on residents wanting the council’s help or permission to clean up around their properties in preparation for the bushfire season. “We’ve lost two people in my family because you dickheads won’t cut trees down,” he said.
Sound familiar California? And there are other places as well where environmental activists have successfully blocked forest management procedures which help inhibit the type of holocaust loosed in the bush of Australia and in the California fires of a year or so ago.
It seems, when given the opportunity, environmentalists tend toward the extreme. The result in Australia, of course, just as in California, was the total destruction of all the trees they were supposedly saving. Not doing what anyone with common sense would call prudent has also lead to the deaths of not only masses of wildlife, but fellow human beings as well.
There was widespread applause when Nillumbik Mayor Bo Bendtsen said changes were likely to be made about the council’s policy surrounding native vegetation.
But his response was not good enough for Mr Spooner: “It’s too late now mate. We’ve lost families, we’ve lost people.”
Despite the increasing amount of skepticism about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) openly expressed by climate scientists, apparently nothing is going to dissuade the Obama administration from its alarmism on the topic:
California’s farms and vineyards could vanish by the end of the century, and its major cities could be in jeopardy, if Americans do not act to slow the advance of global warming, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said Tuesday.
In his first interview since taking office last month, the Nobel-prize-winning physicist offered some of the starkest comments yet on how seriously President Obama’s cabinet views the threat of climate change, along with a detailed assessment of the administration’s plans to combat it.
Chu warned of water shortages plaguing the West and Upper Midwest and particularly dire consequences for California, his home state, the nation’s leading agricultural producer.
In a worst case, Chu said, up to 90% of the Sierra snowpack could disappear, all but eliminating a natural storage system for water vital to agriculture.
“I don’t think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen,” he said. “We’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California.” And, he added, “I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going” either.
What the Obama team has not gripped yet is that there is no scientific proof (much less a “consensus”) that humans have anything beyond a negligible effect on the climate. As McQ alerted us to yesterday, there is not even a scientific basis for the claims being made by Chu:
We [Keston C. Green and J. Scott Armstrong] have concluded that the forecasting process reported on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis….
Since the publication of our paper, no one has provided evidence to refute our claim that there are no scientific forecasts to support global warming.
The lack of any scientific foundation isn’t about to stop political maneuvering, however:
He stressed the threat of climate change in his Senate confirmation hearings and in a video clip posted on Obama’s transition website, but not as bluntly, nor in as dire terms, as he did Tuesday.
In the course of a half-hour interview, Chu made clear that he sees public education as a key part of the administration’s strategy to fight global warming — along with billions of dollars for alternative energy research and infrastructure, a national standard for electricity from renewable sources and cap-and-trade legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
He said the threat of warming is keeping policymakers focused on alternatives to fossil fuel, even though gasoline prices have fallen over the last six months from historic highs. But he said public awareness needs to catch up. He compared the situation to a family buying an old house and being told by an inspector that it must pay a hefty sum to rewire it or risk an electrical fire that could burn everything down.
“I’m hoping that the American people will wake up,” Chu said, and pay the cost of rewiring.
Chu, who is not a climate scientist, seems to working from the same playbook as our (former) car mechanic. He too was hoping we’d pay him the cost of some expensive repairs that could potentially cause serious problems if left untended. And just like with the AGW scare, a second opinion revealed that there wasn’t anything actually broken. Unfortunately, while we opted not to pay for the unnecessary repairs to our car, when it comes to the federal government we don’t get that choice. Chu’s “hoping” for us to pay for the Obama administration’s alarmism is pretty much the same thing as telling us the bill is in the mail.
Note also that while the L.A. Times story managed to find studies supporting Chu’s theories, and to quote parties in favor of his prescriptions, no mention was made of skeptics until the last paragraph, and that was reserved for a politician:
Global warming skeptics were not swayed. “I am hopeful Secretary Chu will take note of the real-world data, new studies and the growing chorus of international scientists that question his climate claims,” Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement. “Computer model predictions of the year 2100 are simply not evidence of a looming climate catastrophe.”
It’s a shame that the best the LAT could do for a view contrary to that of Chu and AGW scientists was to get a quote from a statement put out to the public by Sen. Inhofe. Maybe if they had had some basic research skills, they could have located and quoted from the publicly available Green & Armstrong Report. Or perhaps, they might have employed their vaunted J-School talents such as picking up a phone and calling a source.
The funny thing is, I distinctly recall being told over and over again how the Bush administration had politicized science, much to the detriment of us all. Why even the LAT reported such grave concerns. Whatever happened to that concern anyway?
Plus ça (hope and) change, plus c’est la même chose.
It sounds innocuous enough – at least in the broad language used below. I’m talking about Sen. Boxer’s promised push to move “global warming” legislation through Congress within weeks (or, per Boxer, no later than the end of the year):
Boxer’s principles for global warming legislation aim for a law that would:
— set “certain and enforceable” short and long-term emissions targets;
— ensure state and local entities keep working to address global warming;
— establish a market-based system that cuts carbon emissions;
— use revenues from this carbon market to help consumers make the transition to clean energy and invest in new technology and efficiency measures;
— ensure a level global playing field with incentives for polluting countries to give their share to the international effort to curb climate change.
These goals won quick applause from environmental and conservation groups, including the National Wildlife Federation, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Environment America and Environmental Defense Fund.
Well of course those groups applauded the list. They’ve been beating the AGW drum for years. And it occurs to me that one of the reasons Boxer is working so hard to move this into the legislative hopper as quickly as possible because the skeptic’s voices are becoming increasingly heard.
Like anything else, there’s a window for legislation and I think Boxer sees that window starting to close. The information countering the AGW nonsense is starting to build momentum. Boxer understands that at some point there will be a tipping point. Already polls have flipped and for the first time more believe the climate change we’re undergoing is the result of natural cycles and not man-made emissions.
If that gap continues to widen, and I believe it will, plus the cost to do what Boxer and the Democrats want to do is given more visibility, the opportunity to pass such legislation will wane (just as we see support for the present stimulus bill withering as more and more information about it becomes available).
Boxer and the Democrats hope to strike while the iron is hot – no pun intended.
Hope and change.
Newmark’s Door tells us that J. Scott Armstrong, a noted professor of marketing at Wharton, has taken a look at the “global warming models” and come to some conclusions:
We have concluded that the forecasting process reported on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis.
1. No scientific forecasts of the changes in the Earth’s climate. Currently, the only forecasts are those based on the opinions of some scientists. Computer modeling was used to create scenarios (i.e., stories) to represent the scientists’ opinions about what might happen. The models were not intended as forecasting models (Trenberth 2007) and they have not been validated for that purpose. Since the publication of our paper, no one has provided evidence to refute our claim that there are no scientific forecasts to support global warming.
We conducted an audit of the procedures described in the IPCC report and found that they clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting (Green and Armstrong 2008). (No justification was provided for any of these violations.) For important forecasts, we can see no reason why any principle should be violated. We draw analogies to flying an aircraft or building a bridge or performing heart surgery—given the potential cost of errors, it is not permissible to violate principles.
2. Improper peer review process. To our knowledge, papers claiming to forecast global warming have not been subject to peer review by experts in scientific forecasting. . . .
5. Forecasts are needed of the costs and benefits of alternative actions that might be taken to combat climate change. Assuming that climate change could be accurately forecast, it would be necessary to forecast the costs and benefits of actions taken to reduce harmful effects, and to compare the net benefit with other feasible policies including taking no action. Here again we have been unable to find any scientific forecasts despite our appeals for such studies.
Speaking of the peer review process, Warren Meyer at the ever readable Coyote Blog reminds us that, in fact, “peer review” has a fairly narrow function, and not the power most would like to give it.
Jennifer Marohasy posts:
Last Friday there was an article in one of the most read science journals, Science, entitled “Galloping Glaciers of Greenland have Reined Themselves In” by Richard A. Kerr.
Yes, as the title suggests, the article explains that a wide-ranging survey of glacier conditions across south eastern Greenland, indicates that glacier melt has slowed significantly and that it would be wrong to attribute the higher rates of melt prior to 2005 to global warming or to extrapolate the higher melt rates of a few years ago into the future.
She further reports that for some reason, the MSM just hasn’t managed to pick up on this story.
That shouldn’t come as a huge surprise to anyone who has followed the AGW issue from its beginning. The MSM has been one of its chief enablers. And it appears that the BBC has given up all semblance of impartiality in its coverage of AGW:
Londoners might have been startled last Monday to see a giant mock-up of a polar bear on an iceberg, floating on the Thames outside the Palace of Westminster. They might not have been so surprised to learn, first, that this was a global warming propaganda stunt and, second, that the television company behind it is part-owned by the BBC.
And finally, Czech President Vaclav Klaus fired at Al Gore again:
“I don’t think that there is any global warming,” said the 67-year-old liberal, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the European Union. “I don’t see the statistical data for that.”
Referring to the former US vice president, who attended Davos this year, he added: “I’m very sorry that some people like Al Gore are not ready to listen to the competing theories. I do listen to them.
“Environmentalism and the global warming alarmism is challenging our freedom. Al Gore is an important person in this movement.”
Klaus was speaking at the World Economic Forum and said that he was more concerned about the planned actions to combat the so-called problem than the consequences.