Thursday, July 23, 2009


An email from Brad Arnold []

In the July issue of the International Journal of Global Warming, Bo Nordell and Bruno Gervet of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Lulea University of Technology in Sweden have come up with a remarkable finding that completely changes the way we understand global warming. By the way, the article "Global energy accumulation and net heat emission" is peer reviewed (in other words, it is credible science). See here and here.

The scientists' calculations show that three fourths of accumulated heat is from heat emissions. In other words, most of the global warming is from heat humans have generated, not from increased levels of greenhouse gas in the air.

The IPCC stated that the probability that global warming was caused by human emissions is over 90%. Instead, the heat our power plants, motors, and furnaces put into the environment are at least as significant as the greenhouse gas they emit into the air. Now we know, and knowing is half the battle.

Among the startling implications of this major change to the theory of global warming is nuclear power. Although nuclear power has a small carbon footprint, it will not slow down global warming because it produces heat emissions equivalent to three times the energy of the electricity it generates.


Supporting India's stand that it would not budge under pressure from the western world to accept emission reduction standards, noted environmentalist R K Pachauri today said New Delhi cannot be "pressurised" on the issue and asked the developed world to act first.

Pachauri said the statement made by Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh during a joint interaction with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that India would not budge under pressure from the western world to accept emission reduction standards was the country's principled stand.

"I think it is a principled stand. What he (Ramesh) said is absolutely right. India cannot be pressured into taking commitments. There is no rational basis for asking India to do that," Pachauri, also the Chairman of the Noble prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told PTI in an interview.



Planning delays caused by a transition to a new government after next year's election threaten to hold up investment needed to secure Britain's energy supplies and cut carbon dioxide emissions, industry leaders have warned. Ernst & Young, the professional services group, says in a report on Tuesday that the years to 2015 will be "critical" in determining whether Britain meets targets to develop renewable energy and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

Over the next seven years the industry will have to invest £90bn ($149bn) in new wind farms, power stations, electricity networks and energy efficiency measures to have a chance of achieving the government's objectives, E&Y believes.

But concerns are growing in the energy industry that Tory plans to sweep away the new planning system being introduced by Labour will create uncertainty and delay investment plans until well after the next election, expected to be held in May next year.

Tony Ward, a partner in E&Y's power team, said: "If a transition to a new government doesn't happen seamlessly, then the risk is we won't be on the critical path for some investments. If a new nuclear power station, for example, is to be operating in 2018, there are critical decision points only 12 to 18 months away."

Industry concerns centre on the new Infrastructure Planning Commission, which will take decisions on large projects including energy investments, and the National Policy Statements, due in the autumn, which are intended to shape planning decisions.

The Conservatives plan to subsume the IPC into the Planning Inspectorate and pass its role for decisions on strategic projects to a minister, probably the energy secretary in the case of power stations, wind farms and grid connections. The energy industry fears another period of uncertainty while the new system beds down. The Tories plan to retain the NPSs, but the statements are subject to consultation and parliamentary scrutiny and the industry is keen to avoid further delay.

Sarwjit Sambhi, director of power generation at Centrica, which commissioned the E&Y study, said: "We don't have a problem with [the Tory plan] per se; we just hope that it happens expediently and smoothly."



Britain's largest low-cost airline is to cut almost a third of its flights from Stansted this winter, blaming "unfair" passenger taxes for making the routes uneconomical. Ryanair, which currently runs 40 aircraft from Stansted, its main London hub, will run just 24 planes from October, leading to a 30 per cent reduction in the number of weekly flights. It is the latest airline to cut its schedules, increasing the pressure from the aviation and tourist industries on the Chancellor to review the controversial air passenger duty (APD).

Belgium, Holland, Greece and Spain have all reduced or scrapped similar taxes to boost tourism during the recession. Yesterday Ryanair's arch-rival easyJet joined in the attack, branding the tax "certifiably bonkers".

The British Air Transport Association (Bata) has already approached the Government over the issue as many of its members have warned the measure could have a disastrous impact on an industry already suffering heavily from the effects of the recession. An industry analyst, Rigas Doganis, said that the decline of the aviation industry had been "absolutely frightening".

However, industry sources believe that while a £1 rise in the tax in November appears to be a "fait accompli", they are concentrating their efforts on stopping a doubling of the tax, due to come in next year. APD first came into effect in 1994 but was overhauled in the pre-Budget report last November. The tax is in four bands, dependent on how far the passenger flies. In Europe, there is currently a flat £10 fee for passengers on shorthaul economy flights, rising to £40 to fly further. This will rise to £22 and £90 from November next year. The Government introduced it as a green tax, which easyJet rejected yesterday. "As an environmental tax it is stupidity itself as it is a flat rate. A passenger flying on the most environmentally friendly plane will pay the same as one on a dirty old banger."

Virgin Atlantic also came out against the tax, and has started printing anti-APD messages on its e-tickets. Sir Richard Branson called it "one of the most unjust taxes out there" on a website launched railing against APD. He said there was "not a shred of evidence to suggest the £2bn-plus currently raised is going towards environmental or sustainable projects".



It usually doesn't happen this quickly in Washington. But President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are finding that the old maxim that what goes around, comes around applies to them, too. Less than six months into his term, Mr. Obama's top initiatives -- health-care reform and "cap and trade" energy legislation -- are in serious jeopardy and he has himself and his congressional allies to blame.

Their high-pressure tactics in promoting and passing legislation, most notably the economic "stimulus" enacted in February, have backfired. Those tactics include unbridled partisanship, procedural short cuts, demands for swift passage of bills, and promises of quick results.

With large majorities in Congress and an obsequious press corps, Mr. Obama was smitten with the idea of emulating President Franklin Roosevelt's First 100 Days of legislative success in 1933. Like FDR, Mr. Obama tried to push as many liberal bills through Congress in as brief a time as possible.

He made a rookie mistake early on. He let congressional Democrats draft the bills. They're as partisan as any group that has ever controlled Congress, and as impatient. They have little interest in the compromises needed to attract Republican support. As a consequence, what they passed -- especially the $787 billion stimulus -- belongs to Democrats alone. They own the stimulus outright.

That makes them accountable for the hopes of a prompt economic recovery now being dashed. With the economy still faltering and jobs still being lost, Mr. Obama's credibility is sinking and his job approval rating is declining along with the popularity of his initiatives. Republicans, who had insisted the stimulus was wasteful and wouldn't work, are being vindicated. [...]

In urging fast action, Mr. Obama sounded apocalyptic: "If we do not move swiftly to sign the [stimulus] into law, an economy that is already in crisis will be faced with catastrophe. . . . Millions more Americans will lose their jobs. Homes will be lost. Families will go without health care."

Once the stimulus passed, Democrats said the impact would be practically instant. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) predicted "an immediate jolt." Economic adviser Larry Summers said, "You'll see the effects almost immediately." White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said it would "take only weeks or months" to be felt.

A similar sequence of appeals, claims, promises and a speedy vote was followed when the cap and trade bill, which would put a ceiling on greenhouse gas emissions, came before the House on June 28. The bill's architect, Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.), presented a crucial 300-page amendment at 3 a.m. It passed 16 hours later.

But even that was not fast enough. Mr. Waxman was irritated by House Republican leader John Boehner's hour-long address in opposition. As Mr. Boehner spoke, Mr. Waxman demanded he be cut off. He wasn't, but after Mr. Boehner finished, Mr. Waxman asked the presiding officer, who was then Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D., Calif.), how long the "two minute speech" had lasted. "The customary amount of time" for the minority leader, she replied.

Mr. Waxman's testiness won't make final passage of cap and trade easier. Nor will the Obama administration gain from its crude attempt last week to punish -- and silence -- Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) for saying the stimulus should be cancelled. Four cabinet members wrote to his governor, Republican Jan Brewer, to ask if she wanted to forfeit stimulus money for her state.

Mr. Obama's health-care and energy initiatives, the core of his far-reaching agenda, were bound to face serious opposition in Congress in any case. Hardball tactics and false promises have only made the hill he has to climb steeper. Now he may lose on both. The president and his congressional allies should have known better.


Global Warming’s Missing Link: EPA Whistleblower Exposes Agenda’s Fatal Flaw

The Environmental Protection Agency is pushing the greatest regulatory intervention in US history, seeking to declare that carbon dioxide poses an "endangerment" under the Clean Air Act, threatening human health and the environment. To hear the EPA tell it, CO2 - which nonetheless remains indispensible to life on earth and without which plants die, more of which produces higher crop yields, etc. - will kill us all.

This proposal is a cornerstone of the Obama administration's attempt to bring the energy sector of the economy under state control just as it seeks to do with health care, essentially ruining something in order to take it over in the name of cleaning up capitalism's mess. It's an old play, which the statists have run for decades, certain that every now and then it will break for a big gain. But an inconvenient EPA career professional just doing his job assessed the premise and informed his superiors, in the sole substantive report presented in the Agency's internal deliberations, that upon scrutiny CO2 clearly does not drive temperatures or climate but oddly enough, the sun and oceans do. His boss told him to shut up, that nothing good could come to their office by injecting this analysis into the process, as the decision had been made.

One problem with that, of course, is that the decision is not allowed to be made before the process has run its course. That is the entire purpose of an internal debate which, internal documents now prove, was truncated and in fact illusory.

For his troubles, this physics graduate of Cal Tech and MIT PhD economist - which are why he had his job - was subjected to the ritual smear job as unqualified by the thugs running the global warming industry. The nicest thing said about him was "He's not a climate scientist!" shrieked by legions of non-scientists nonetheless cocksure of their own wisdom, insight and informed judgment on the matter.

Left unmentioned were the scientific credentials of the EPA administrator, President Obama, and the 535 members of Congress who are tasked with deciding the issue. "He's just an economist!" the non-scientists' line continued, ignoring that whole physics-degree thing and that, ah, well, the UN's "chief climate scientist" is "just an economist." Again, as the whistleblower Dr. Alan Carlin learned, facts have little weight in this debate. Still, one key truth that Carlin brought to the fore exposes how - assuming that sanity prevails in the Senate and Congress is unable to impose "cap-and-trade" energy rationing - his exposé will carry the day in court.

This is man-made warming theory's missing link. The global warming industry and its political enablers have been getting away with an amazing stunt of backing out from the equation inconvenient things which your lying eyes might tell you. Amid the cries of "warming proceeding even faster than predicted" - an actual, common claim among alarmists, politicians and the media - observations reveal that the recent cooling has brought us to the average of the entire 30-year history of the satellite temperature record.


New York's waterless urinals miss the mark

State workers say new devices leading to splashes, stink

The Department of Environmental Conservation's effort to maintain eco-friendly bathrooms at its downtown headquarters has made quite a splash but not in the way the state intended. DEC has been getting complaints by state workers that waterless urinals at their building have created a fetid mess complete with "splash back," "puddles (of urine) on the floor," and "unpleasant odor."

Those using the restrooms at DEC's 625 Broadway headquarters grew so disgusted that in April they filed a union grievance alleging a health hazard and a violation of work rules protecting employees from "elements, such as filth or pathogens," according to records obtained by the Times Union. The grievance was dismissed by DEC, then taken to the Governor's Office of Employee Relations earlier this month where it also was dismissed.

Nonetheless, GOER's Assistant Director for Safety and Health, Charles Vejvoda, conceded that "if indeed back splash or public urination is occurring, there is a violation of human dignity and decorum." He also recommended that the union and DEC try to work out the issues. Displaying some bureaucratic humor, he listed possible remedies including the use of such protective equipment as rain gear, aprons, rubber boots, gloves, or even reducing fluid intake, but concluded that wasn't feasible.

Since its grievance was dismissed, the Public Employees Federation union has begun urging DEC employees to e-mail and otherwise inform management when there is a problem. "Let's work with them until someone in 'authority' takes effective steps to mitigate the stench and this third-world situation," wrote PEF steward Stanley Byer in a recent memo. "At this point, our position is that management can work with the landlord of the building to resolve the situation," said PEF spokeswoman Darcy Wells.

Installation of waterless toilets was part of DEC's effort to have an environmentally benign building as its headquarters, noted agency spokeswoman Lori Severino. The headquarters, leased from the Picotte Cos. and managed by the state Office of General Services, has Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, designation by the U.S. Green Building Council.

Use of waterless toilets is important in earning such a rating, which is one reason more builders and landlords are buying them, said Bill Hughes, an American Society of Plumbing Engineers designer. Waterless toilets, he explained, work well but require maintenance such as replacing cartridges and frequent cleaning. "It gets quite specific on what you have to do," said Hughes.

While PEF members appear satisfied with the cleaning efforts, they were apparently concerned with some cases of poor aim as well as odor -- which GOER also rebutted in its decision. For example, Vejvoda in his report wondered if workers were exaggerating the extent of problems, writing "this reviewer does find the assertion that someone is 'urinating above the urinals' quite troubling inasmuch as such a healthy stream would be uncommon in a workforce whose average age is 48." He also suggested that "certain individuals may come up short," as an explanation for the complaint about puddles.



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 is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.


No comments: