A scientist gets rapped for speaking the truth
Please note this link. It's in Finnish and I cannot translate it into English, but the Finnish national broadcasing company (YLE) did an interview with a researscher from the Finnish research institute of forests. The researcher Mr. Risto Jalkanen explains that he's participating the EU funded Millennium-research who aims to study the climate change within the last 1,000 years.
Mr. Jalkanen explains, that there's no evidence at all which proves that the climate in Lapland (or in Russian's Siberia) is warming. The spring has come somewhat earlier during the last 300 years as indicated by the Ice-melt in River Tornio (you've blogged that earlier, if you remember). Mr Jalkanen also states, that it is impossible to get the controversial study results into IPCC.
Immediately after the piece of news of Mr Jalkanen was announced, both his supervisor and the chief of Finnish Meteorological Institute urged him to deny his study as well as the results. Jalkanen followed the concept and said "he's not denying the role of CO2 but just says that studies do not show any warming in northern Finland".
(You can read the Google translation here. It's not idiomatic English but it is pretty clear what it is saying)
Scientist Accuses American Chemical Society Editor of 'censoring of articles and letters' that reject man-made global warming claims!
'Many of the members have not only expressed their disgust, they are contemplating leaving the group'
Longtime American Chemical Society (ACS) member and Environmental Chemist Steven J. Welcenbach, the President of the Wisconsin based Alchemical Ventures, Inc., has released a portion of his private email exchange with American Chemical Society's editor in chief Rudy Baum. Baum, now under pressure to be removed from his post, created a scientific firestorm with his June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News (C&E News) claiming that the global warming debate was settled. Welcenbach has been an ACS member since 1986.
Hello Marc [Morano], (Executive Editor of Climate Depot)
Thank you for getting the word out with what is going on in American Chemical Society (ACS). A vast number of members are very upset with the lack of complete and balanced coverage of the AGW issue and the continued censoring of articles and letters by Rudy Baum that do not support the theory of catastrophic global warming caused by CO2 emissions from man's use of petroleum and coal. Many of the members I have spoken with have not only expressed their disgust but either have left ACS or are contemplating leaving the group. Lots of us, however, have decided that we should take action to return the group back to the scientific method and the initial purpose for which this group was formed and why we joined.
Therefore, I think it is imperative for you and all readers to understand the entire context of my exchange with [editor-in-chief] Rudy Baum. I treated him with respect and tried to interface with him in a reasonable way. As you will see, he resorted to personal insult and attack, thus my final e-mail which he decided was enough to publish. It was not.
[Climate Depot Editor's Note: Baum quoted Welcenbach's email in a follow up article reacting to blowback from ACS member scientists. Welcenbach wrote to Baum: "When all is said and done, and you and your kind are proven wrong (again), you will have moved on to be an unthinking urn for another rat pleading catastrophe. You will be removed. I promise." ]
As the largest scientific organization in the world we need to be on the front lines of this debate. True debate. Unfortunately Rudy Baum used his position as a political stump speech platform while cherry picking info supporting AGW and suppressing all info and articles to the contrary. For this reason he needs to go. An information censor is the LAST thing ACS needs.
I have been involved as a TRUE environmentalist since 1986. I have worked in the waste disposal and recycling industry this entire time. I will send you a copy of my resume in a separate e-mail for you to get a more complete picture of what I have done in this area.
3). Well Rudy,
I hoped that you may have had a new information input valve into your mind but I see it has been closed off or eliminated. I guess you're happy in your little prison of thought so I certainly don't want to disturb you. It becomes obvious when the "Flat Earth" comments come out one is not dealing with an individual interested in fact finding or relevant discussion. When all is said and done, and you and your kind are proven wrong (again), you will have moved on to be an unthinking urn for another rat pleading catastrophe. You will be removed. I promise. We have no need for further interaction.
2). Hi Rudy,
Thank you for your quick response. But you have to admit this is a pretty pathetic record. As far as AGW theory goes, I'm sure you've heard of the works of the following PhD research scientists: Richard Lindzen, Willie Soon, Fred Singer, Craig Idso, Dennis Avery, Ferenc Miskolczi, Miklos Zagoni, William Gray, Roy Spencer, Timothy Ball, Henrik Svensmark, Patrick Michaels and hundreds of others referenced in their footnotes and publications. I have many articles from these gentlemen in my possession and could provide you with copies if you're truly interested in understanding the supporting information of my claim. In addition, many others have written excellent works outlining the tremendous economic and social implications of implementing such a policy, such as current Czech Republic and EU president Vaclav Klaus and Roy Innis, to name just two of many that I have read.
Truly, as editor of our ACS publication, you owe it to all of us to provide all sides of all issues. You have done this to some degree with the Biofuels situation and Wind power. See, I am watching and can be fair. But this publication is woefully short on providing accurate and new information on the real story of AGW. One example that comes to mind is that you published in July of 2007 that "the arctic Ice is melting" in concentrates implicating AGW. But you never published the fact that the Ice has more than returned since to a 50 year high. You also have not published anything about the fact that global temperatures have been decreasing since 1998 and plummeting in the last two years. So there is an excellent example supporting my grief. You did publish something about the cooling sea temps but the article was highly skewed with excuses dismissing the data by AGW advocates. But that's OK. You published it and we could draw our own conclusions.
I only ask you to allow publication of articles which refute AGW. They are the majority of articles published in the world on this subject. Go online and get the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change report and you will have all the information you need, fully footnoted and supported with actual data. Also, go to CO2science.org for tons of articles and fully footnoted, data supported information.
I apologize for the tone of our initial conversation but I obviously feel very strongly that your position requires a better diversity of information on this subject. I hope we can gain clarity here. I am confident that if you truly dig in to the material I am referencing here you will see very compelling information and data that could very well change your mind.
1). Hi Rudy,
Please kindly send me some examples of this claim. Also, would you be so kind as to reference at least ONE article published in the C&E news magazine that does not support the now FULLY DISCREDITED theory of man-made CO2 induced global warming/climate change. I will be more than happy to supply you with say, several hundred articles which provides factual data and employs the real scientific method to be published in C&E News (Chemical and Engineering News).
Frankly, a lot of members like myself are very, very tired of your censorship and proclaiming your misguided and unsupported AGW agenda. If this is a publication for scientists, the least we can expect of our editors is respect for the scientific method.
Would cap 'n trade deliver environmental benefits?
The ecologists below are dubious
While policymakers across of the globe are relying on environmental restoration projects to fuel emerging market-based environmental programs, an article in the July 31 edition of Science by two noted ecologists warns that these programs still lack the scientific certainty needed to ensure that restoration projects deliver the environmental improvements being marketed.
Markets identify the benefits humans derive from ecosystems, called ecosystem services, and associate them with economic values which can be bought, sold or traded. The scientists, Dr. Margaret Palmer and Dr. Solange Filoso of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, raise concerns that there is insufficient scientific understanding of the restoration process, namely, how to alter a landscape or coastal habitat to achieve the environmental benefits that are marketed.
"Both locally and nationally, policymakers are considering market-based environmental restoration programs where the science does not yet conclusively show that environment health will improve once the 'restoration' is completed," said Dr. Palmer. "These programs may very well make economic sense, but the jury is still out whether or not the local environment will ultimately benefit."
At present, the demand in ecosystem service markets is driven by regulations that require those who harm the environment to mitigate or provide offsets for their environmental impacts. But in the regions throughout the world, including the Chesapeake Bay, many people hope that voluntary markets will expand outside of a regulatory context and result in a net gain of ecosystem services rather than just offsets for lost ecosystem services.
Examples include markets for flood protection created by restoring floodplains or wetlands and markets for improving water quality by restoring streams or rivers.
The scientists outline what should be done before markets expand further: recognize that restoration projects generally only restore a subset of the services that natural ecosystem provide, complete a limited number of projects in which direct measurements are made of the response of biophysical processes to restoration actions, and identify easily measured ecosystem features that have been shown to reflect the biophysical processes that support the desired ecosystem service.
"There is an inherent danger of marketing ecosystem services through ecological restoration without properly verifying if the restoration actions actually lead to the delivery of services," said Dr. Filoso. "If this happens, these markets may unintentionally cause an increase in environmental degradation."
NAACP Seeks to Impede Black Advancement By Endorsing Climate-Based Regulation
Directionless Group Pushes Plan Opposed by Majority of Constituency
Contending with political realities such as the election of the first black president, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is understandably struggling to justify its continued existence. At its centennial convention, it clearly moved in the wrong direction by allying with environmental lobbyists to promote economically devastating climate policy opposed by the majority of black Americans.
"I'm all in favor of the nation's oldest civil rights group redefining its mission and agenda; however this indicates that the NAACP continues to struggle with current realities that face the nation's black communities by promoting policies they are opposed to," said Project 21 member Joe Hicks, who is also a PajamasTV commentator. "If this group simply wants to be defined as another left-wing organization touting the weak science on climate change, then it is destined to face ever-growing irrelevancy."
Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli added: "It's outrageous for the NAACP to place liberal ideology over the welfare of the nation. By aligning with the environmental activist lobby, the NAACP is now an official member of 'Club Green' - the exclusive club of elites waging war against fossil fuels. Tragically, the cover charge for their membership - job losses, reduced standard of living and high energy costs - will be borne disproportionately by the very people the NAACP claims to represent."
At its New York City convention earlier this month, the NAACP entered into a partnership with the National Wildlife Federation to "ensure that the response to climate change can take a higher ground than business as usual." President Obama, during his speech to the group, sought to equate his energy policy with civil rights. Additionally, NAACP president Benjamin Todd Jealous now characterizes the group as "a multiracial, multiethnic human rights organization."
The NAACP's newfound zeal for promoting further environment-based regulation of the American economy, however, is opposed by the vast majority of black Americans. In a recent poll of 800 black Americans, there was significant concern that climate change regulations - much like the Waxman-Markey "cap-and-trade" legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in late June - would have a harmful and disproportionately negative impact on black America.
For example, the poll found that 76 percent felt Congress should make economic recovery rather than climate change its top priority and that 56 percent believe Washington policymakers do not adequately consider the quality of life of black Americans when addressing climate policy. When asked how much they would pay for gas and electricity to reduce greenhouse emissions, 76 percent said they would be unwilling to pay more than $50 a year while 52 percent were unwilling to pay anything at all.
According to research from The Heritage Foundation, regulations created by the Waxman-Markey bill would raise electricity costs by 90 percent, gas by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035 (an average of $1,241 more for a family of four by that time). Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office reported in 2007 that "most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline... [and] poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would.
Hicks added: "The NAACP shows how out of touch it has become by advocating Obama Administration policies on so-called climate change that impact the very population that claim to represent - poor, black Americans. Adding an increased burden of higher coast for essential things like gasoline and electricity at a time of economic hardship demonstrates that they have no independent course of leadership, but instead is blindly following this administration's disastrous lead."
Australian PM Kevin Rudd admits 50,000 "green" jobs not new
KEVIN Rudd has conceded the vast bulk of the "50,000 new green jobs, traineeships and apprenticeships" he announced as the centrepiece of the opening of the ALP conference are not "new" or "jobs". Government ministers continued to be confused yesterday about the nature of the Prime Minister's announcement that there would be "50,000 new green jobs and training opportunities to build a stronger and greener Australian economy".
Mr Rudd and Julia Gillard also conceded that Employment Participation Minister, Mark Arbib, had made a mistake and not had "the best of days" when he did not have the detail of the Prime Minister's scheme, or know whether young people recruited to clear bushland would be paid full time or left on unemployment benefits as part of a work-for-the-dole scheme.
Linking the creation of new jobs and caring for the environment is part of the government's strategy to reassure people there will be "green jobs and training" -- such as cleaning parkland and training on installing insulation -- in Australia after the introduction of an emissions trading scheme.
Ms Gillard, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Employment, said yesterday it wasn't important where the money came from for the jobs and training. What was important was equipping young Australians for a "carbon-constrained economy".
But Malcolm Turnbull said the announcement of 50,000 new jobs and training places was "phoney". "The Prime Minister stood up and announced 50,000 new jobs -- it is simply not true," the Opposition Leader said. "There are 6000 jobs in the package and they're not new," he said.
Mr Rudd, speaking on Melbourne radio 3AW, conceded the 6000 jobs had been negotiated earlier but said the funding was "absolutely new". The government's $94 million package is to help train apprentices and young people, he said. A further 10,000 places will be available in a new national Greens Jobs Corps for six months, during which time eligible unemployed people under 25 will have a training allowance added to their Youth Allowance or Newstart payment.
The real cost of "Green" electricity is beginning to bite in Western Australia
The cost of renewable energy will rise significantly tomorrow with WA customers paying nearly twice what they paid six months ago. Government-run energy retailer Synergy has increased the price of every green power option they provide, outraging environmental groups and users of renewable energy. The move comes just weeks after Murdoch University energy economist Adam McHugh warned that if the state continued to favour “dirty” industry over renewable projects, consumers would pay.
Synergy says the price increase reflect the cost of supplying green energy to WA. “While the fuel sources of renewable energy are inexpensive, the other costs associated with it are not, including the initial infrastructure cost, network costs, back-up generation and the like which are factors in the full cost of renewable energy,” Synergy head of corporate affairs Andrew Gasper said.
Solar energy producer for Wise Earth - and Order of Australia recipient - Garry Baverstock said the unsubstantiated and unpublicised price hike was sending shock waves through the renewable energy sector and supporters of green energy initiatives. “While Synergy customers are still coming to terms with the recent 25 per cent price rise that took place on 1 April and 1 July respectively, people buying green energy are soon to be slugged with up to a further 20 per cent price hike,” Mr Baverstock said.
Synergy offered three main green options to residential consumers, including blocks of green energy called EasyGreen, NaturalPower where you pay extra for every kilowatt-hour (kWh) and Earth Friendly which allows you to offset carbon released by consuming coal or gas fired alternatives. Blocks of green power valued at $30 on an EasyGreen plan were worth 682kWh, but as of tomorrow customers will receive only 492kWh for the same money. “If you are on a NaturalPower plan you are currently paying an extra 4.4 cents per kilowatt hour and as tomorrow you will be paying 6.1 cents per kilowatt-hour,” Mr Baverstock said. “If anything, there should be no difference in whether a person wants to buy renewable or non-renewable power.”
WA is currently one of the dirtiest states in the nation. Just 3.8 per cent of WA's energy is generated from renewable sources.
Gary Warden, a NaturalPower consumer and Al Gore Ambassador, said the Synergy price hike will reinforce Western Australia's position as the worst in the country in regard to adapting to green power. “According to the Federal Government’s GreenPower program and Australian Bureau of Statistics data less than one per cent of Western Australians purchase green energy compared to 16 per cent in Victoria, between 12 and 13 per cent in Queensland and South Australia, between eight and nine per cent in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory,” Mr Warden said. “If anything, we Western Australians and our representative government enterprises need to take a long hard look at ourselves to see what we can do to catch up with the rest of Australia,” he said.
Synergy said it is committed to increasing generation from renewable sources in WA. "This is demonstrated by Synergy signing memoranda of understanding for the supply of new and emerging renewable energy technologies, namely with New World Energy supporting the development of geothermal energy and Carnegie Corporation, supporting the development of wave energy," Mr Gasper said. "By supporting these technologies, Synergy is not only facilitating investment in research and development in these new and emerging technologies, but will also increase the diversity of its renewable energy portfolio if and when the technologies are available on a commercial scale."
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.