Indur Goklany's Rejected "Nature" Letter

More abandonment of science by "Nature" magazine exposed. Post lifted from Roger Pielke -- which see for references

Indur Goklany, of the U.S. Department of Interior, shared with us the letter reproduced below which he submitted to Nature and had rejected for publication, as is of course their prerogative. However the letter is interesting enough that we thought it to be worth sharing, with his permission. It is a response to an article by Patz et al. which appeared in Nature last November. Patz et al. repeated WMO claims that human-caused climate change causes over 150,000 lives annually, which comes from McMichael et al. 2004 (here in PDF). Last year we commented on this WHO report, taking a somewhat different perspective than Goklany does below. Have a look, it is an interesting letter. Goklany has also had some smart things to say in his publications about adaptation and climate change.

Goklany Letter

Sir - It is astonishing to find a review article in Nature (Patz, J.A., et al., Nature 438, 310; 2005), henceforth "the Review", whose major conclusion is taken from an analysis whose authors themselves acknowledge did not "accord with the canons of empirical science". Specifically, its estimate, that anthropogenic climate change already claims over 150,000 lives annually, is based on the Review's reference 57 which notes (on p. 1546)(1) that:

"Empirical observation of the health consequences of long-term climate change, followed by formulation, testing and then modification of hypotheses would therefore require long time-series (probably several decades) of careful monitoring.While this process may accord with the canons of empirical science, it would not provide the timely information needed to inform current policy decisions on GHG emission abatement, so as to offset possible health consequences in the future." [Emphasis added.]

In other words, science was sacrificed in pursuit of a pre-determined policy objective. But, absent serendipity, one cannot base sound policy on poor science. Sound science is a necessary, although not sufficient, condition for sound policy.

Furthermore, the Review's policy pronouncement that "precautionary approaches to mitigating anthropogenic greenhouse gases will be necessary" (p. 315), even if ultimately proven sound, is not based on any policy analysis. As it notes, "the regions with the greatest burden of climate-sensitive diseases are also the regions with the lowest capacity to adapt to the new risks" (p. 315). Thus, another method of reducing this burden would be to enhance these regions' adaptive capacity to cope with these diseases. This can be accomplished by either specifically reducing their vulnerability to these diseases or by advancing the underlying determinants of adaptive capacity, namely, economic development, human and social capital, and the propensity for technological change (which is tantamount to advancing sustainable development). (2, 3)

Either adaptive approach would reduce both "new" health risks due to climate change and "pre-existing" risks occurring in the absence of climate change. By contrast, greenhouse gas reductions would only address new risks. Moreover, the burden of disease from new risks in 2000, which the Review itself estimates was a twentieth of the pre-existing burden (4), will-if projections of the global populations at risk of malaria (5) and hunger (6) are any guide-remain smaller, at least through most of this century. Secondly, either adaptive approach would reduce the total burden more rapidly than emission reductions because of the climate system's inertia. Therefore, by comparison with emission reduction efforts, either adaptive approach would for the next few decades reduce climate-sensitive risks faster, by a greater amount and, as shown elsewhere, more economically.(4)

For these reasons, the Review's policy fix-"precautionary approaches to mitigating anthropogenic greenhouse gases while research continues on the full range of climate-health mechanisms and potential future health impacts" (p. 315)-is inadequate to the "global ethical challenge" posed by climate change (p. 315). In the short-to-medium term, it would save more lives, and therefore be more precautionary and ethical, to reduce vulnerability to urgent climate-sensitive problems (e.g., malaria and hunger) which currently kill millions each year, promote sustainable economic development and implement "no-regret" emission reduction policies while undertaking the research and development necessary to expand the universe of "no-regret" technological options so that, in the long term, deeper emission reductions, when and if they become necessary, can be more reasonably afforded. (4) Such an approach would help solve current problems without compromising the ability to address future problems.




INTERESTING BOOK

Below is a summary of "Sustainable Fossil Fuels: The Unusual Suspect in the Quest for Clean and Enduring Energy" by Mark Jaccard

More and more people believe we must quickly wean ourselves from fossil fuels - oil, natural gas and coal - to save the planet from environmental catastrophe, wars and economic collapse. Professor Jaccard argues that this view is misguided. We have the technological capability to use fossil fuels without emitting climate-threatening greenhouse gases or other pollutants. The transition from conventional oil and gas to their unconventional sources including coal for producing electricity, hydrogen and cleaner-burning fuels will decrease energy dependence on politically unstable regions. In addition, our vast fossil fuel resources will be the cheapest source of clean energy for the next century and perhaps longer, which is critical for the economic and social development of the world's poorer countries. By buying time for increasing energy efficiency, developing renewable energy technologies and making nuclear power more attractive, fossil fuels will play a key role in humanity's quest for a sustainable energy system.

Myths Challenged by "Sustainable Fossil Fuels"

1. Pundits, the public and even many politicians now believe that a peak in conventional oil production in the next few decades will be associated with enormous economic disruption. Chapter 5 explains why this is highly unlikely.

2. Some industrial leaders, economists and climate change cynics argue that greenhouse gas reduction will bankrupt us. But there are policies that, if put in place immediately, will give the correct long-run signal for innovation and investment at the margin without harming the viability of existing capital stocks - no sudden energy price increases, no sudden purging of the capital stocks. Chapter 8 shows how these policies are now being successfully applied in several jurisdictions, but often the lessons are not extended more widely.

3. Most environmentalists and even many independent experts believe that we must stop using fossil fuels in this century in order to save the planet from war, economic collapse and environmental catastrophe. As the book explains throughout, this is a confusion of means and ends. This is an important message that can help bring the warring parties together - realizing that we can have a much cleaner energy future but we do not need to punish specific regions and industries if they are willing to be part of the long-term solution. In the case of our fossil fuel industry, it means that the industry should be pushing right now for the rapid development of carbon capture and storage - which it currently is not - and environmentalists should be embracing fossil fuels as a potentially clean source of energy, as part of the sustainable energy future.

4. For 30 years, energy efficiency advocates have argued that energy efficiency is profitable and is the key solution to energy-related environmental problems. Yet careful research shows that it is extremely difficult to divert the economy from its normal rate of declining energy intensity - especially if one attempts to do this without forceful policies like price changes and / or regulations.

5. Renewables advocates have propagated the myth that with scale-up renewables can be cheaper than polluting uses of fossil fuels, and that this development of renewables will be will be consistent with a small-is-beautiful future. However, if we scale-up renewables, they will still have significant costs, largely because of the capital required to be address issues of low energy density, intermittent supply, and inconvenient location. And with high capital requirements, there are likely to be economies-of-scale. Denmark's first wind generators were single units of 300 kW. Today, the individual units are 3 MW, and these are being installed in 200 MW offshore windparks. Renewables can and will play a significantly growing role in the global energy system, but their arrival as the dominant energy source will take a long time and will depend on their ability to achieve specific breakthroughs to improve their competitive position with clean fossil fuels - photovoltaics integrated in building materials, genetic engineering improving the production of various biomass energy sources, developments in small hydro technology.

6. People in the nuclear industry are frustrated that the public in developed countries - and perhaps increasingly in crowded developing countries - are unwilling to accept the nearby siting of a new nuclear plant. But nuclear proponents need to understand that people do not estimate risk by multiplying the probability of an occurrence by its impact. They tend, instead, to focus on the impact and to want to avoid high impact events. Yet, people are willing to accept high impact risks in certain situations, such as flying in an airplane. The nuclear industry needs to learn to work with these realities of human decision making if it is to make any headway.




THE IDEA OF "CLEANING" CO2 EMISSIONS OUT OF COAL-USE IS STUPID BUT IF POLITICS DICTATES IT, IT CAN BE DONE

The reign of King Coal - and his royal cousins, crude oil and natural gas - is coming to an end, we are told, and the threat of climate change will finally terminate our on-off relationship with fossil fuels. It is a message that has become common currency nearly everywhere - but you write off fossil fuels at your peril, because there is life in the old king yet.

Today we burn coal. But we could gasify it instead, using decades-old technology deployed in South Africa, a legacy of apartheid-era restrictions on crude oil imports. Rather than making gasoline, however, we could add extra steam to produce a hydrogen-rich gas, and then scrub it with a solvent to extract its carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas we do not want to enter the atmosphere.

The resulting hydrogen could be burned to produce electricity, or piped to industrial plants, buildings and vehicles for use in fuel cells. Sulphur, mercury and other coal residuals could be captured and converted into useful products. The carbon dioxide could be injected into old oil and gas reservoirs, enhancing their output by 30 per cent, or into deep saline aquifers for permanent storage.

Because all these technologies are used commercially today we can confidently estimate their costs. Zero-emission conversion of coal into clean-burning electricity and hydrogen will increase the cost of delivered energy by 25 to 40 per cent over the next 50 years. That is an annual increase of less than 1 per cent. Thus, clean energy from fossil fuels might consume 8 per cent of the family budget of 2050 instead of today's 6 per cent.

And we are not about to run out of fossil fuels. While doomsayers decry the peaking production of "conventional" crude oil, experienced energy experts calmly assess the technical and economic potential of substitutes. They note that when the price of crude oil is above $35 (œ20) per barrel - Jand today it is $60 - alternatives such as oil sands from Canada, natural gas from Qatar, coal from South Africa and biomass from Brazilian sugar cane can profitably produce oil products such as gasoline and diesel. Even with growing consumption, fossil fuels could last hundreds of years, given the global resources of coal and unconventional natural gas deep in the earth and frozen below the oceans. This evidence contradicts the claims of doomsayers that every spike in oil prices portends imminent resource exhaustion.

Some argue that fossil fuels should be abandoned because there are superior alternatives - energy efficiency, nuclear power and renewables such as wind, solar and hydropower. The aggressive pursuit of energy efficiency is desirable. But around the world, humans continue to crave ever greater access to energy. The global energy system was 16 times larger in 2000 than in 1900. Two billion people today are without electricity and modern fuels, and by 2100 their offspring will be 4 billion. These people use less than one gigajoule of energy a year while a typical American uses more than 300.

Even with dramatic energy efficiency gains in wealthier countries, a subsistence level of 30 gigajoules for the planet's poorer people will still require a three-fold expansion of the energy system during this century. Scale-up is the major challenge for nuclear power and renewable energy. Fossil fuels account for 84 per cent of the global energy system. Nuclear power is at 2 per cent and renewables - mostly burning of wood and agricultural residues - at 14 per cent.

The wholesale replacement of fossil fuels in just one century will require a phenomenal expansion. The nuclear industry should grow, but its pace is limited by challenges in siting new facilities, storing radioactive waste and preventing nuclear weapons proliferation. Most renewable energy has low-energy density and variable production, which increases land-use conflicts and capital costs.

An essential effort in research and development will decrease the costs of renewables. But zero-emission fossil fuels will remain cost-competitive for at least this century. Acceptance of this economic reality means admitting that fossil fuels should not be regarded as a foe, but rather as humanity's best friend in its quest for a clean, enduring and affordable energy system. Long live the king!

Source






RECORD COLD SPREADS FURTHER IN EUROPE

Record high temperatures in some places are often paraded as proof of global warming so I guess this proves global cooling



Freezing air from Siberia sent temperatures across much of northern Europe diving on Friday and the death toll from the cold rose to more than 70 in Russia. Forecasters warned the cold snap - including minus 33 degrees in Finland and Estonia - would last several more days. Temperatures are expected to drop to minus 40 in Finland over the weekend. Sub-zero temperatures, sometimes accompanied by blizzards, drove people off the streets, closed schools, disrupted travel and led to power cuts, from Finland to eastern Turkey. Moscow's health services said five people died overnight on Friday in the capital, where temperatures hit minus 30 for a second day. The latest casualties take to at least 71 the number of deaths across Russia since the start of severe weather late last Monday, including 16 in the capital. In Latvia, the meteorological centre said Thursday's temperature of minus 27 in Riga was the coldest in the capital for that day in 100 years. Police said six people had died of the cold.

More here

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************