THE NEW WITCH-HUNT: GREEN CAMPAIGNERS CALL FOR SCIENTISTS' HEADS TO ROLL

To anyone who spent time watching hurricane forecasts last summer, Max Mayfield may seem like a hero. The director of the National Hurricane Center predicted many of the season's worst storms. But a day before the start of the 2006 hurricane season, environmental groups called for Mayfield and other officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to resign. "NOAA is actively covering up the strong and growing scientific link between more powerful hurricanes and global warming," said Mike Tidwell, who represents a group called the U.S. Climate Emergency Council.

The groups demanded that Mayfield and NOAA administrator Conrad Lautenbacher step down. "They must resign immediately," said Tidwell, in front of about 30 protesters who'd gathered for a morning rally outside NOAA headquarters in Silver Spring, Md.

NOAA officials declined to be interviewed today but released a statement saying the agency had not taken a specific position on the relationship between global warming and hurricane behavior. "We recognize there is an ongoing scientific debate and will continue to support research that might identify detectable influences of global warming in hurricane frequency and/or intensity," the statement said.

One NOAA official, speaking on background, said today that not all of the agency's scientists agree a global warming-hurricane link exists. Mayfield put the blame on natural climate cycles when he testified before Congress in September 2005. "The increased activity since 1995 is due to natural fluctuations and cycles of hurricane activity," he said at the time.

But a growing body of peer reviewed scientific evidence - including a study released today by researchers at Pennsylvania State University and MIT - downplays the role of natural cycles and blames global warming - brought on by human activities - as a factor heating the Atlantic Ocean, which in turn fuels more intense hurricanes that may affect the United States. "There have been some views put forward that what we are seeing in the Atlantic is due to a natural variability," said Greg Holland, a climatologist at the National Center for Hurricane Research. "The problem is that what we're seeing in the Atlantic is mirrored all the way around the world. We're actually looking at an entire world that is heating up, not just the Atlantic Ocean, which is why we are absolutely convinced that there is a very large greenhouse warming signal in what we're seeing."

Recent studies have shown that while the overall number of hurricanes has not increased significantly, their intensity has increased. Holland said the frequency of the strongest Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled around the world since 1970. Climate scientists say the increase is a result of warmer water temperatures that put more water vapor into the atmosphere, which acts as fuel. "A hurricane reaches out and grabs the available water vapor, sucks it into the storm, and then dumps it down and concentrates it," says Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Hurricane Research. "So when it rains, it pours now much more than it did 30 years ago."

Scientists like Trenberth try to quantify just how much impact global warming has on storms. "We think that probably the best number we can put on it about now is something like 8 percent," he said. "So in New Orleans [during Katrina], where they had 12 inches of rain, about 1 inch of that was probably due to global warming and the other 11 would have happened maybe anyway."

But following the 2005 season, NOAA released a statement discounting any link between global warming and worsening hurricanes. It set off a furor among some NOAA scientists, who charged the agency prevented them from speaking freely about climate change issues. NOAA backed away from that statement in February, and NOAA administrator Lautenbacher sent an e-mail to agency staff. "I am a strong believer in open, peer reviewed science as well as in the right and duty of scientists to seek the truth and to provide the best scientific advice possible," the e-mail read. Lautenbacher encouraged scientists "to speak freely and openly" with journalists.

As for Mayfield, he suggested in a recent interview that he'd be willing to see more evidence that hurricanes are getting worse because of global warming. "I'm willing to be convinced either way here," Mayfield told ABC's Ned Potter. "I'm always looking forward to looking at new data. If I get convinced, so be it. But I'm not convinced yet."

ABC News, 31 May 2006

Comment on the above:

When I read this the first two times I thought it came from The Onion, but apparently it's true. The upshot is, sometimes I have to agree with Rush Dumbimbaugh. There are environmental wackos out there every bit as misguided as the far right freaks who call for assassinations of South American heads of state and protest military funerals in the name of God.

"NOAA is actively covering up the strong and growing scientific link between more powerful hurricanes and global warming," said Mike Tidwell, who represents a group called the U.S. Climate Emergency Council.

Hmmm...really? So two independent research groups have published a very small handful of papers in the past year supporting a link between tropical storms and AGW (e.g.). Meanwhile, a small handful of other papers, published by other independent research groups, either do not find such links (e.g.) or say that the signal of the increase is buried in the noise of societal changes (e.g.).

I said in the title "science that doesn't exist." I don't mean that science supporting a link between TS's and AGW doesn't exist. Rather, I mean that the protesters are arguing (again, based on a very small number of papers all published in the past year) that a strong scientific consensus exists (and that NOAA is conspiratorially covering it up). I am arguing that despite strong words from the various scientific camps, no scientific consensus has yet become apparent (and won't for a few years). To protest stating otherwise is a gross misunderstanding of how science works and, worse, is stretching science toward a political goal. If there is a Republican War on Science, this must be the Democrats getting revenge.

If we want to actually follow the accepted machinations of scientific process, the most appropriate statement comes from NOAA:

"We recognize there is an ongoing scientific debate and will continue to support research that might identify detectable influences of global warming in hurricane frequency and/or intensity," the statement said.

and not from dimwits who think that changing the leadership of NOAA does anything at all to change the science:






2 Studies Link Global Warming to Greater Power of Hurricanes

New York Times article below. Comment follows

Climate researchers at Purdue University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology separately reported new evidence yesterday supporting the idea that global warming is causing stronger hurricanes. That claim is the subject of a long-running scientific dispute. And while the new research supports one side, neither the authors nor other climate experts say it is conclusive.

In one new paper, to appear in a coming issue of Geophysical Research Letters, Matthew Huber of the Purdue department of earth and atmospheric sciences and Ryan L. Sriver, a graduate student there, calculate the total damage that could be caused by storms worldwide, using data normally applied to reconciling weather forecast models with observed weather events.

The Purdue scientists found that their results matched earlier work by Kerry A. Emanuel, a hurricane expert at M.I.T. Dr. Emanuel has argued that global warming, specifically the warming of the tropical oceans, is already increasing the power expended by hurricanes.

The approach used by the Purdue researchers, concentrating on what is called reanalysis data, has never been tried for this purpose before, Dr. Huber said in an interview, adding, "We were surprised that it did as well as it did." In a statement accompanying the release of the study, Dr. Huber said the results were important because the overall measure of cyclone activity, whether through more intense storms or more frequent storms, had doubled with a one-quarter-degree increase in average global temperature.

In the other new study, Dr. Emanuel and Michael E. Mann, a meteorologist at Pennsylvania State University, compared records of global sea surface temperatures with those of the tropical Atlantic and said the recent strengthening of hurricanes was attributable largely to the rise in ocean surface temperature.

Some researchers say long-term cycles unrelated to global warming are the major cause of hurricane strengthening in recent decades. But Dr. Emanuel and Dr. Mann, whose work is to be published in Eos, a publication of the American Geophysical Union, maintained that the cycles, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, had little if any effect.

In fact, they reported that the most recent cooling cycle could just as well be attributed to the presence of particle pollutants in the atmosphere that block sunlight and, they said, could have temporarily counteracted some of the influence of warming from accumulating greenhouse gases. Dr. Mann said the new findings also suggested that as efforts to cut pollution by particles and aerosols continued to intensify, their cooling effects would diminish while the heating effects of greenhouse gases would remain unconstrained. As a result, he said, "we could be in for much larger increases in Atlantic sea surface temperatures, and tropical cyclone activities, in the decades ahead." He joked that some might urge an increase in pollution, but called it "a Faustian bargain."

Stanley B. Goldenberg, a meteorologist with the Hurricane Research Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who has expressed skepticism about any connection between global warming and hurricane intensity, said he had not seen the new papers but had read nothing in other recent research to change his view. "There's going to be an endless series of articles from this circle that is embracing this new theology built on very flimsy interpretation" of hurricane data, Mr. Goldenberg said. "If global warming is having an effect on hurricanes, I certainly wouldn't base it on the articles I've seen."

Source

Comment on the above:

You won't find more blantantly obvious example of cherrypicked science than in today's New York Times, which has an article on two new peer-reviewed studies on hurricanes and climate change. Given the debate over climate change and hurricanes the new studies are certainly newsworthy. However, it is what is left out of the Times story that makes the cherrypicking stand out undeniably.

The New York Times makes (and has made) no mention of two other just-published peer-reviewed studies (links here and here) providing somewhat different perspectives on the hurricane-climate issue and its policy significance (I am a co-author on one of the studies. It does not deny a global warming-hurricane link, but instead characterizes the literature in the context of an exchange with others with a different view). These studies, which are two among a larger family of research, are not necessarily "the other side" but they do add important context selectively ignored by the Times. In today's article, for balance the New York Times interviewed NOAA's Stanley Goldenberg, who is a respected scientist, but who hadn't seen either of the papers referred to in the article or published a peer-reviewed study this month. Interviewing one of the authors of recent peer-reviewed work would have necessarily required referencing that work.

To the extent that the New York Times has a powerful role in shaping how policy options are framed and discussed, it does a disservice to the public and policymakers when it cherrypicks science. I suppose this is because they have decided to pick sides in the political debate over climate change and that political calculus shapes its editorial decisions.






TEN THINGS YOU CAN DO TO SAVE THE PLANET

Nearly ten years after the Kyoto accords, our planet continues to careen helplessly toward certain environmental destruction. The skies are choked with pollutants. Polar bears are plunging through the thinning ice caps. Ben Affleck is still having problems finding a decent comeback project. Thankfully, with the new release of Al Gore's blockbuster eco-documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," the world is finally heeding the disaster looming on the horizon. But mere consciousness is not enough to cure our current climate ills - it takes action. Here are a few simple things you to put the planet on the road to recovery.

1. Turn off faucets when not in use. While a single dripping faucet may not seem to be much of an environmental hazzard, the numbers really begin to add up when you're hosting a Sierra Club fundraising party for Laurie David and all 10 of your bathrooms are in use. Have your domestic staff check to make sure that electonic sink sensors are working properly, and use other water conservation methods such as installing low-flow bidets. Remember to remind your guests: "If it's yellow, let it mellow."

2. Upgrade to a new Gulfstream G550. Next time you take off for Cannes or Sundance or that big Environmental Defense Fund gala, stop and think how much fuel that clunky old G450 is using. Not only does the new G550 have 10.8% better fuel efficiency, it's quieter, has real burled walnut, and with a maximum cruising speed of Mach 0.885 you'll never be late for the Palm d'Or ceremony!

3. Crush a Third World economic development movement. One of the most pressing threats facing our environment is rising incomes in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Only a generation ago, these proud dark people were happily frolicking in the rain forest, foraging for organic foods amid the wonders of nature. Now, corrupted by wealth, they are demanding environmentally hazardous consumer goods like cars and air conditioning and malaria medicine. You can do your part to stop this dangerous consumer trend by supporting environmentally aware leaders like Robert Mugabe and Fidel Castro to foster an economy of sustainable low-impact ecolabor camps.

4. Don't Have Babies. Many people are shocked when they learn that fewer than 25% of the Screen Actors Guild and Directors Guild have been spayed or neutered. Sure, babies make great fashion accessories and it's fun to give them awesome names, like Kumquat Wildebeest Paltrow and Toploader Enchilada Cage. But these miniature humans will eventually grow and begin ravenously consuming the Earth's depleted reserves of aux pairs and psychotherapists.

5. Alternative fuel motorcades. Let's face it: whether you are on an international press junket or going to an awards banquet, motorcades are a way of life. But this doesn't mean you can't make your red carpet entrance in an eco-friendly way. When possible, tell your publicity team to request a electric, hybrid, or E-85 stretch limo for you and your entourage. Later, when you are vomiting outside the Viper Club, encourage the paparazzi to share the photos to conserve high energy use camera flash pods.

6. Go on a random killing spree. If science has taught us anything, it is that human beings are the root cause of our current environmental mess, and it's high time that we address these two-legged eco problems head on. Next time you're on your way to a location shoot, do a little shooting of your own - have the driver lower the tinted windows and pop a few caps on behalf of Mother Earth. Not only will you be doing the environment a good turn, it will earn you valuable youth market "street cred."

7. "Green begins at home." Whether you live in East Hampton or Topanga Canyon, there are dozens of little things you can do around your compound to minimize harm to the environment. For instance, have your groundskeeping staff lower the water levels in your koi ponds, and turn off your energy-wasting security cameras between 1 AM and 7 AM. If you own a summer ranch in Montana, send an email to the trail boss and tell him/her to add Beano to your cattle herd's feed to reduce ozone-depleting methane emissions.

8. Phase out the entertainment industry by 2011. If there is one sector of our economy that typifies America's obscene energy waste, it is the entertainment industry. Every year untold gigawatts are consumed to power studio kleig lights, theater projectors, popcorn machines, and multi-city concert tours, with no discernable benefit to society. With your help, this destructive drag on our environment can be reversed within five years. Do your part by pledging to greenlight only those films that have recycled or incomprehensible story lines, and by signing preachy and unlistenable musical acts. By purging the entertainment market of its dangerous popular appeal, you will be reducing the public's desire to make wasteful and expensive SUVs trips to their local concert halls, cineplexes and video stores.

9. Commit suicide. As an eco-aware, planetary resource parasite, you will eventually want to kill yourself to spare the environment any further damage that your personal existence has already caused. However, it is important that you plan your suicide carefully as not to disturb the ecosystem's delicate balance. Self immolation, while poignant, can release up to 50 kg of airborne fluorocarbons. Why not try the the hot new Malibu trend, ritual Japanese sepukku? it's exotic, elegant, and your intact corpse will make a great compost pile addition.

10. Support eco-friendly organizations and political candidates. Finally, you can make a major impact for environmental good through community legislative action. Like it or not, getting Washington to take action on environmental issues requires intensive lobbying and the election of eco-thinking representatives, and this takes money. There are literally hundreds of worthy environmentalist organizations and candidates out there, and the choices can be confusing. Fortunately, I have taken the work out of this for you. Before you do #9, make a legacy of your commitment to eco-action: send me a bundled contribution via PayPal to my email address, and I will see to it that it gets to the right place. Together, we can make a difference!

Source






BRITISH CO2 EMISSIONS RISE TO 10 YEAR HIGH AS COAL MAKES COMEBACK

Britain is more reliant on coal for its electricity than it has been at any time over the past decade, according to government figures. The amount of coal consumed by UK power stations increased last year to the highest level since 1996, as record gas prices forced electricity suppliers to find other sources of power. This pushed up Britain's carbon dioxide emissions to their highest in 10 years, figures from the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) show. They also help explain why ministers tried to lower targets for cuts to carbon emissions.

The government research, which has been quietly released on the DTI website, also shows that domestic coal production plunged by 18pc last year. Imports of the carboniferous fuel "were 21pc higher at a new record level and generators' demand for coal was up 3.5pc". According to the DTI report "deep mined production fell to a record low of 9.5m tonnes, while opencast coal production was at its lowest level since 1975 and 13pc lower than in 2004. Ellington mine closed due to flooding leaving only eight major deep mines."

Stubbornly high oil and gas prices over the past year have meant that coal, which is a more inefficient source of energy, is once again a viable option for generators. According to the DTI's numbers, power generators burnt 32.7m tonnes of coal last year, measured in terms of its oil-equivalent weight. This compares with 31.3m tonnes in 2004 and a record low of 25.5m tonnes in 1999.

Because coal is a more polluting fuel than other sources, the UK's carbon emissions rose by half a million tonnes last year to 157.4m tonnes, the highest since 1996. Even after accounting for newly-planted forests, which reduce CO2 levels, net emissions were still the highest since 2000.

The Daily Telegraph, 30 May 2006




South Australian wind farms shelved

Millions of dollars worth of Mid North wind farm projects are being shelved because the Australian Government is holding off boosting renewable energy targets. Only one proposal is likely to break ground by the end of the year and that's because it has its own "built-in" consumer, having been optioned by Australian Gas and Light. Other wind farms have not been so lucky and have suspended construction until Canberra's politicians extend the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target scheme.

The targets, set by the Federal Government, call for energy suppliers to source two percent of their power from renewable sources. This target has, however, just about been met leaving wind farm companies with no inducement to continue with their projects as they cannot guarantee the sale of their energy. An $180 million wind farm at Waterloo which would have produced enough power to supply, for example, the Clare and Gilbert Valleys regional demand about 90 per cent of the time and which would have employed anywhere between 50-100 people during the construction of the 39 wind turbines, has been suspended. "We would like to revisit the project in the future and have asked the Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council for a 12 month planning approval extension," Tasmanian company Roaring 40s public relations and communications manager Josh Bradshaw said.

He said the industry was lobbying the Federal Government for an extension to the MRET scheme to a minimum of five percent. "We will continue to lobby and a delegation of major wind energy companies travelled to Canberra this month and spoke with the Prime Minister's office to highlight some of the concerns we have. "And while there were no firm commitments they did acknowledge the investment problems we are facing," Mr Bradshaw said. A proposal by Wind Prospect for a 170MW wind farm of 85 turbines in the Barunga and Hummocks Ranges, west of Snowtown, which would have supplied the energy needs for more than 132,000 average homes, has also stalled....

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.

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