Press release from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw's lack of objectivity and balance on the issue of global warming appears to have tainted his upcoming Discovery Channel documentary called: "Global Warming: What You Need To Know" airing on July 16. Brokaw's partisan past and his reliance on scientists who openly endorsed Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004 and who are financially affiliated with left wing environmental groups, has resulted in a documentary that is devoid of balance and objectivity. Colorado State climatologist and professor of atmospheric sciences at Colorado State University, Roger Pielke, Sr, viewed an advance copy of the Brokaw's special and declared that it contained "errors and misconceptions." "The show relied on just a few scientists with a particular personal viewpoint on this subject which misleads the public on the broader view that is actually held by most climate scientists," Pielke wrote on July 7.
Unfortunately, viewers should not expect a scientifically balanced view of the climate from the former NBC newsman. Brokaw who has been affiliated with the Sierra Club and has recently lavished praise on former Vice President Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth." Brokaw, who called Gore's film "stylish and compelling", has called the science behind catastrophic human caused global warming `irrefutable." Brokaw also chose to ignore all 60 scientists who wrote to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in April of 2006 questioning the science of climate alarmism.
Brokaw's partisan environmental credentials are so firmly established that the former anchor was offered a job in the Clinton-Gore Administration to be the director of the National Park Service in 1993. According to The Washington Post, Brokaw `very seriously' considered the offer at the time but decided to remain with NBC News. "I have a lot of friends in the environmental movement," Brokaw said. Brokaw's wife also serves as vice president of the environmental group Conservation International.
In his new Discovery Channel special, Brokaw does not disclose the potential and known biases of the scientists he chose to feature. For example, Brokaw presents NASA's James Hansen as an authority on climate change without revealing to viewers the extensive political and financial ties that Hansen has to Democratic Party partisans. Hansen, the director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by former Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz. Subsequent to the Heinz Foundation grant, Hansen publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004, a political endorsement considered to be highly unusual for a NASA scientist.
Hansen also has acted as a consultant to Gore's slide-show presentations on global warming, on which Gore's movie is based. Hansen has actively promoted Gore and his movie, even appearing at a New York City Town Hall meeting with Gore and several Hollywood producers in May. Hansen also conceded in the March 2004 issue of Scientific American that the use of "extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change "may have been appropriate at one time" to drive the public's attention to the issue --- a disturbing admission by a prominent scientist.
Brokaw's special also features Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University. Brokaw once again fails to disclose Oppenheimer's partisan and ideological affiliations to viewers. Brokaw fails to note that Oppenheimer actively campaigned against President George Bush in 2004 and, like Hansen, endorsed Senator Kerry for president. Oppenheimer was affiliated with the partisan group Scientists and Engineers for Change and the green group Environment2004 financially bankrolled in part by the Heinz Foundation where Teresa Heinz-Kerry serves as the chairwoman. Environment2004, which put up billboards in Florida mocking President Bush in the final months of the 2004 presidential election. Viewers of Brokaw's program will not be informed that Oppenheimer personally donated to the group Environment2004, a group that was so partisan it encouraged visitors to their Webpage to "get involved" in defeating President Bush by playing a game called "Whack-a-Bush." In addition, Oppenheimer also serves as a "science advisor" to the left wing and politically charged group Environmental Defense and was a co-founder of Climate Action Network. Finally, Oppenheimer appeared with Hollywood activist Leonardo DiCaprio and Gore's movie producer Laurie David on Oprah Winfrey's talk show.
Brokaw's special has led climatologist Pielke to conclude that Brokaw presents "a narrow view of the issue of natural and human climate variability and change." "It is a disappointment that this show, hosted by Tom Brokaw, did not use the two hours to present a balanced view on the spectrum of perspectives on the human influences on the climate system," Pielke wrote.
Pielke has authored more than 275 peer reviewed journal articles on climate. According to Pielke, Brokaw also presents flawed science in his program. "Rapid glacial retreat is not a new observation, nor are all glaciers retreating. The Grand Pacific glacier in Glacier Bay National Park, for example, retreated 48 miles from 1794 to 1879, and a further 17 miles by 1916. Large masses of glacial ice breaking from the Antarctic continent are not a new feature of this region," Pielke noted.
UK ENERGY CRISIS THREATENS 1.4 MILLION JOBS
The energy crisis is threatening 1.4m manufacturing jobs in Britain and is about to spark another round of household power bill rises, the Government will be warned tomorrow. The stark message to MPs comes from the Energy Intensive Users Group, representing major manufacturers, and the Amicus trade union, which will tell MPs that gas supplies are no longer secure. The warning will precede Tuesday's publication of the Energy Review, in which the Prime Minister will recommend sweeping away planning restrictions that delay windpower and gas storage facilities and allowing the Government to push through a nuclear rebuilding programme.
Fears of more price increases come after ScottishPower last month raised gas prices by 17% and electricity bills by 10%. Analysts expect other suppliers, such as British Gas and Powergen, to follow suit within weeks, with combined household bills, already touching 1,000 pounds a year, likely to rise by at least ten%.
The EIUG will present a confidential report by the Government's own energy consultant Ilex that claims 400,000 direct jobs and onem indirect jobs are in danger in the event of a three-week interruption of gas supplies - a very real possibility according to the group.
Wholesale gas prices are 55% higher than in 2005 and EIUG director Jeremy Nicholson told Financial Mail: 'Our members are reporting job losses and reductions in investments. We are seeing an accelerated decline of manufacturing.' Nicholson said a crisis last winter, when the UK came within 24 hours of running out of gas, was averted only because heavy users of energy cut back significantly. But he warned that the situation could only get worse as the UK became more reliant on imported gas.
The Energy Review's emphasis on streamlining planning will delight the wind power and gas storage industries, which have suffered from years of planning delays. Financial Mail asked power company bosses and industry experts what they wanted to see in the Energy Review.
* Nicholson said: 'We want to ensure British industry gets the secure, competitive energy supplies it needs to stay in business. It would be reckless to allow Russia, or the vagaries of the weather, to determine whether the lights stay on.'
* Vincent de Rivaz, chief executive of EDF Energy said: 'Let's not forget what all this is about. We want to keep the lights on, keep costs down and deal with climate change. This is a huge challenge but also an opportunity to deliver secure, clean and affordable energy for the long term.'
* Dr Paul Golby, chief executive of E.ON UK said: 'What we need to see are decisions that ensure security of supply through diversity of generation...also ensuring we reduce our carbon emissions.'
* Jake Ulrich, managing director of Centrica Central, said: 'We want a tough approach to carbon emissions and a strong carbon price - delivered through the Government providing long-term support for market-based solutions. Liberalisation of European energy markets is vital to achieving fair prices for energy, as well as allowing free flows of gas to the UK.'
Mail on Sunday, 9 July 2006
WAY CLEARED FOR MORE BRITISH NUKES
One of the last barriers to the construction of a new generation of nuclear power stations will be swept away in a fundamental reform of the planning system, announced yesterday in the Goverment's Energy Review. People living near proposed nuclear plants and wind farms will lose the right to question their necessity or general safety, as planning inquiries are limited to considering local issues for projects of national importance, Alistair Darling, Trade and Industry Secretary, said.
Most household windmills and solar panels will become exempt from planning permission as part of a strategy to encourage "microgeneration" of renewable electricity close to home. The measures will reduce Britain's carbon emissions by between 19 million and 25 million tonnes by 2020, a cut of between 13 and 17 per cent on current projections. This will bring the country more than a third of the way towards the Government's goal of cutting 1990 emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. The decision to back a new generation of nuclear reactors infuriated environmental groups. Tony Juniper, of Friends of the Earth, said: "This is a huge mistake. Nuclear power is unsafe, uneconomic and unnecessary."
Others, however, welcomed the backing for nuclear as the only sensible option. Professor Robin Grimes, of Imperial College London, said: "New nuclear build is the only viable way of generating the capacity to deliver a reduction in carbon emissions."
While the review increases support for renewable energy and efficiency savings, the document is clear that these measures cannot in themselves fill the "energy gap" and provide Britain with the low- carbon, secure electricity supply that it needs. Mr Darling said that as 25 gigawatts of coal-fired and nuclear capacity was due to be lost by 2020 - 30 per cent of the present total - some of this would have to be replaced by new atomic plants to prevent over-reliance on imported natural gas.
New nuclear reactors would have to be funded entirely by the private sector, without government subsidies, and the review does not state how many plants or of what sort should be built. For both the renewable energy and nuclear goals to be achieved, however, the planning system needed an urgent overhaul to stop urgently needed plants and wind farms being held up for years, Mr Darling said.
At present, wind farms take an average of 21 months to secure planning consent, and 11 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity is awaiting consent. Without reform, the prospects for nuclear are likely to be even worse: the inquiry into the last plant to be built, Sizewell B, lasted more than six years and the prospect of similar delays is discouraging new investment.
To overcome this, the Government will issue national "statements of need" after consultation, in the case of nuclear power, in a White Paper towards the end of the year. Once such statements have been issued, local inquiries will not be able to challenge the necessity of individual plants, but only to hear objections based on local concerns.
Mr Darling said that nuclear plants "could make a contribution to reducing carbon emissions and reducing our reliance on imported energy", but that the Government took no view on how many should be built. Without nuclear power, Britain will be dependent on natural gas for 55 per cent of its energy needs by 2020, compared with 38 per cent at present. As North Sea stocks are being exhausted, up to 90 per cent of this would have to be imported, much of it from potentially unstable countries.
Possible sites for nuclear power plants will be investigated in a government-led initiative, which will begin early next year. A new system of safety licensing will also be introduced. Instead of considering each application to build a nuclear reactor from scratch and in isolation, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) will instead "pre-license" individual designs.
The NII will examine the safety case of a proposed design, a process that is expected to take about three years. If it passes muster, it will issue a design acceptance certificate valid for ten years. After an operator selected a site and obtained local planning permission, it would then begin the phase of the licence application. The NII would assess the proposed site and issue a formal licence within twelve months. After a design acceptance certificate has been issued for one reactor, it would clear the way for the construction of similar models. For each new plant, only a site licence would be required, which would take up to 12 months to secure, compared with four to five years under the existing regime.
More here
The Real Cost of Gasoline: Get Over It!
Time out for a reality check. Amidst the blizzard of stories about how high motor fuel prices are hurting America and big oil companies are raping consumers, we decided to do some calculations. The graphic below tells the story: current gasoline prices are a bargain. Yes, they are high when compared to prices over the past twenty years or so. But when compared to the entire post-World War II period, gasoline today is cheap, cheap, cheap.
We came up with this chart by combining two sets of data: the constant dollar price of gasoline and transportation intensity. The first metric is easily understood. Transportation intensity is the total energy consumed in all types of transportation. Since 1949, the amount of energy used in America for transportation has been steadily declining when measured per dollar of GDP output.
If high prices were a big cost to the economy, we should see slowing demand. But according to the Energy Information Administration, March 2006 gasoline sales were nearly 375 million gallons per day. That's the second-highest March consumption figure in the EIA database. (The highest figure was March 2005.) Indeed, gasoline consumption numbers throughout 2005 were at or near record highs every month - even with the devastating effects of the two hurricanes.
Source
Climate double standards: "Many climate alarmists like to point to catastrophic weather events as "proof" that the climate is changing for the worse-but don't expect them to claim that the climate is changing for the better when there's a drop in such events. A 30-county area in central Nebraska and north-central Kansas, part of the West Texas-to-North Dakota "Tornado Alley" region, did not experience a single tornado for the first half of this year-the first time this has happened since 1950. What does this mean for long-term climate trends? Nothing, of course. Yet had there been an increase in tornadoes, we'd never hear the end of it from the climate doomsayers."
***************************************
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.
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment