THE CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY CONFUSION

In Monty Python's classic "Hungarian Phrasebook" sketch, a Hungarian tourist walks into a British tobacconist's shop, and, consulting a faulty phrasebook, tells the clerk, "I will not buy this record, it is scratched." The clerk, looking confused, responds, "Uh, no, no, no. This is a tobacconist's," and says "cigarettes" as he holds up a pack. "Ya! See-ga-rets! Ya!" responds the Hungarian customer. "My hovercraft is full of eels." What does this have to do with anything? Quite simply, the debate over corporate social responsibility (CSR) has come to resemble this exchange. The rhetorical battle has been joined, but the two sides just can't seem to agree on what they're fighting over. In fact, they keep talking past each other.

My organization has made the case against the CSR doctrine repeatedly (see here and here). We have sought to engage CSR's advocates. But, unfortunately, we often seem to be speaking different tongues. (A recent Reason magazine debate on CSR between Whole Foods CEO, John Mackey; Economics Nobel Laureate, Milton Friedman; and Cypress Semiconductor CEO, T.J. Rodgers brought no one closer to agreement.)

This confusion centers on the crucial question: What exactly constitutes a corporation's "social responsibility"? That question hovered around a recent conference on CSR, "Is Corporate Social Responsibility Serious Business," hosted by the American Enterprise Institute. Many of the presentations were insightful and informative, others less so; the discussions were lively; but in the end, there was no more agreement on that question.

Defining Responsibility

Professor Elaine Sternberg of Tulane University made a solid case against CSR. She argued that, by giving a hazily defined class of "stakeholders" a say over corporate decisions, "CSR would deprive owners of their property rights." She noted that, "Business ethics is about conducting business ethically," [emphasis added] not about pursuing goals extraneous to the company's mission. And, because business ethics derives from the very nature of business, owner value is enhanced over the long term by ethical business behavior.

Prof. David Vogel of the University of California, Berkeley, countered that "responsible" firms - as so defined by CSR advocates - do not perform any worse than do firms that ignore the CSR paradigm. The overall impact of "responsibility" on profitability is marginal, he argued, because the resources that corporations can devote to such activity are modest, due to the requirements imposed by the need to improve shareholder value.

Arguing over the effects of CSR on company performance hardly seems like a clash of worldviews. But it's when we get to the question of whether companies should adopt CSR that the disagreement chasm widens. For what should corporations be responsible? Even accepting corporate responsibility for certain problems, which problems are legitimate to begin with?

Vogel and some subsequent panelists emphasized the need for corporate America to tackle the alleged problem of climate change, a position that presupposes certain conclusions that are far from settled. He said that, while useful in helping tackle some social problems, "There are some cases in which CSR is simply a band aid." In such cases, government regulation becomes necessary "to change the incentives of business."

Another way to describe this strategy is for government to intentionally distort the market. And for what? The Kyoto Protocol, one such attempt to "change incentives" to address climate change, is unraveling as you read this, along with many of the scientific assumptions behind it. To argue that businesses must tackle climate change as an impending problem is specious to the point of being, well, irresponsible.

Professor Mark Cohen of Vanderbilt University said that, as globalization has increased pressures against regulation, voluntary social initiatives, in the form of CSR, have taken the place of some social welfare regulation. He also noted that CSR can bring benefits to corporations. It can enhance name recognition and can be an effective way to raise competitors' costs. Major players can leverage suppliers to raise costs for products by labeling them "socially responsible." Cohen provides McDonald's buying only certified fish as an example.

Sternberg responded by noting that neither Vogel nor Cohen defined corporate responsibility. The cases they cite, she argues, constitute an "external bolt-on" to the business, while responsibility is inherent to business in that it is reflected in "how you conduct your business every day, every time." She is right, but most CSR advocates reject this view as morally insufficient, since they view improving mankind as part of business' responsibility.

So if we can't define what constitutes "responsibility," how is this debate supposed to get anywhere? Rather than considering whether CSR is good for business or what societal problems, if any, businesses should tackle, the question that ought to be debated is: What constitutes a corporation's social responsibility?

Elaine Sternberg offered a good starting point. Some subsequent panelists who agreed with her put forth views consistent with hers. But many who did not simply talked past the problem of defining "responsibility," and put forth policy recommendations based on assumption businesses must address certain problems. Worse, the most often cited such "problem" was climate change, which, as noted, may not be a problem at all.

Good for Business?

One example of a company serious about climate change that was brought up was Enron, which strongly supported the Kyoto Protocol, and, as Sternberg noted, had "one of the most stringent" CSR codes. Vogel acknowledged that Enron was "embarrassing" to the CSR community, since the company "did have a very impressive record of social involvement" - which didn't do its employees and investors any good - though he noted, "I don't think Enron fleeced its shareholders because it was responsible, but CSR did not help, either."

Enron's pro-Kyoto Protocol position would likely be supported by most pro-CSR advocates - ignoring the fact that for Enron, Kyoto presented a golden opportunity for rent-seeking. A global mandatory carbon emissions cap-and-trade regime would have created a huge new - artificial market - in carbon permits for Enron to take advantage of. As Cohen also noted, large companies can use CSR to leverage suppliers to raise costs for competitors. So in this regard, it's good for certain businesses.

Of course, CSR advocates put forth a less cynical pitch to CEOs interested in their bottom line. Aron Cramer of the pro-CSR group Business for Social Responsibility, argued that corporations need a "social license to operate" within a community, and that CSR can help them obtain it. And how to do this? By listening to advocacy from so-called non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Cramer acknowledges that many activist NGOs are hostile to the market, and that "it doesn't make sense for companies to engage" with such groups, but says that the majority of NGOs aren't hostile to the market and that their positions are worth companies' time to take seriously.

What Should Companies Do?

But again, this all skirts the question: Should businesses be doing any of this? NGOs are not shareholders; if their goals are consistent with shareholders' interests, why do they need to ask companies to listen to them in the first place? Professor Sternberg's definition offers a good foundation for answering this question. Clive Crook of The Atlantic Monthly, whose article in The Economist, "The Good Corporation," sparked considerable debate on CSR, adds another important consideration: "Profit seeking serves the social purpose." To that I would add the corollary: By doing anything to reduce their bottom line, companies make the world poorer - and there's nothing responsible in that.

Source






Urban Planning - we need to stop it

By Bob Smith

For weeks now, I've been attacking urban planning, the disease that has, for decades, infected our city governments. Urban planning is destroying the character of our cities and selling them to the highest bidders and/or those with the most political clout. Ironically, many of the urban planning crowd bemoan that people are fleeing to the suburbs, which are expanding into former farmland. The simple truth is that the boredom and expense of urban planning is what people are fleeing from, and no increase in planning will bring them back.

City urban planning would not exist in a libertarian society, because cities would not have the authority to interfere in private property issues. They would not have the ability to take property and give it to developers who present a grand plan for redevelopment. If a developer could convince enough people to sell their property, gradually accumulating enough space for a large development, then it would happen, but the developer would profit or lose his own money, not that of the taxpayers, and the previous owners would have voluntarily sold out at a fair price. You think there would be no more large developments? Hogwash. DisneyWorld, a mammoth development, was created under those conditions... no eminent domain... no pressure to sell. I'm sure there are local examples as well. Such a developer may have to pay a high price to get a large section of adjacent properties already being profitably used, but that assures that all existing property owners will get a fair return on their own investment.

Urban planners disparage the untidiness of UNplanned areas. They do not understand the diverse needs of people, and mistakenly believe that they can design areas that will be better than we can choose for ourselves. I've admitted that there is a little urban planner within me... I have that urge to remake everything around me to match what I believe is best. I've learned to control that urge, and to appreciate the different choices that others make. Some of my learning has been from neccessity. On a small fixed income now, I can appreciate the need for low-cost housing (not subsidized housing) as never before. Still, I have many neighbors who can afford even less than me. For them, there is NO good alternative anywhere in the cities... nothing cheaper than what I have. They can form a group of a large number of people to share an apartment or small house. Doing that is often illegal, and not very comfortable. They can try to get into subsidized housing, but their pride will take a hit even if they succeed, and it often takes years.

In a libertarian society, we would have very few building codes. Yes, that sounds shocking now, but most of America was built without them. Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's home, could never have been built under today's building codes. Jefferson designed it himself, and parts of it are creativily strange. He hated to sleep, so the spiraling stairs to upstairs bedrooms are almost impassably cramped and steep.

Planners believe that, without building codes, houses would be built with little concern for safety. There is a grain of truth in that concern. Some low-cost housing would probably be built with a little less concern for safety (by current standards), but poor people have always been willing to risk a bit more in order to have shelter. Currently, they don't have that choice, at least in urban areas.

Any architect, and a great many amateurs, could design and build safe, attractive, livable homes at far lower cost than is now available, if only zoning and building codes were eliminated. Many have tried, only to be thwarted by governments. There are many building methods that simply are not allowed in our cities, where our poorest citizens must live. Buckminster Fuller's geodesic domes were adapted decades ago into a form that could be built by an amateur, at very low cost. Blown concrete over inflatable domes is another inexpensive building method, as is pressed straw/mud construction, underground structures, and many others. See any of them around your city? No, if you want one, you have to go out in the country where zoning and building codes don't exist... where you have the freedom to build truly inexpensive and energy-efficient housing.

It isn't just low-cost housing that is harmed by zoning and building codes. Those controls cramp creativity at all levels. Every new method, or material, or building technique has to go through a battle with the controls already in place. To those who feel bound to defend the controls, there is no such thing as a better way, there is only the accepted, dictated way.

What you would see in a libertarian society is a much more diverse surrounding. I know you would see more creative, unusual homes, but perhaps not radically different-looking. Most people have traditional taste, and would probably remain that way by choice. In that libertarian society, you would see a serious proliferation of commercial businesses, many very small start-up businesses, because they would be much easier and less expensive to start without much regulation. The failure rate of small businesses would decrease, because each business wouldn't be saddled with such high taxes and regulation. With lower costs, each would require less in sales to sustain themselves, so we would have many more of them, with much more variety... and lower prices.

A large percentage of our population has a dream of leaving their boring job and opening some kind of business. Many do so, but it becomes harder every year, as government controls drive up the minimum expense and increase the amount of time, and expertise, needed to comply with regulations. The people who MOST fervently want to open their own business are those whose background and education doesn't qualify them for career opportunities as an employee. They dream of having their own business... understanding and willing to put in the extreme effort needed, and to risk failure... just for the opportunity to be successful. Our overbearing governments are killing that dream for all but the most determined. The obstacles for them to overcome are so great that there is a special section within the U of Chicago law school that teaches law students how to assist in small (especially minority) business startups. That special school was founded by the libertarian Institute for Justice. Someone wishing to start a small business on their own NEEDS a specially-trained attorney just to wade through the morass of regulation and paperwork.

In a libertarian society, opening a small business would be as easy as it seems like it should be. You would just do it. Opening a small business need not be any concern of the city, county, or state. Why should it be? The business affects only their customers, if they can attract them and keep them. A business cannot remain in business unless its products or services are in demand, reasonably priced, and unless they do business fairly. If a business fails, it affects nobody but them. If a business succeeds, it certainly won't be because of government involvement. It is the way America was built... millions of small businesses, most of them run by immigrants.

We were once an amazing nation, filled with entrepreneurial spirit and a can-do attitude that literally screamed WATCH MY SMOKE. I don't think that attitude is dead, but it has been severely stifled with governmental roadblocks put in place through the pressure of big business, labor unions, and elected officials who are either corrupt or who believe they have the right to rebuild the world in their own image.

To the urban planners, both those in universities and those who sit on city planning commissions, I issue the often-declared demand of libertarians to government... JUST GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY. We are not helpless children in need of parental government protection, nor are we irresponsible kids who require tight controls. Citizens formed governmental units to serve them and perform a few functions. We've allowed it to degrade into us being the servants to government. It is time for us to start putting government back into the role of servant to us.





SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN SUMMARIZES THE ANTI-WARMING ARGUMENTS

(From here)

The airing of doubts about global warming that I solicited last week has been remarkable: 169 blog comments (albeit with some repeats) and a number of private emails (including one from a college suitemate and engineering classmate I haven't seen in 18 years). I started the whole discussion because I felt communication on an important scientific issue had broken down, and I figure the best way to make sure we've reconnected the wires is to try and summarize what everyone has been saying. That way, you can correct me if I've misunderstood, misclassified, or just plain missed something. Later, I can take a stab at analyzing the comments and answering some of the requests for further reading, and I hope the discussion will continue from there.

The two most common arguments were:

• Climate has varied naturally long before humans ever arrived on the scene, so it seems likely that the present trends are simply a continuation of that.


• The prediction of global warming is just another instance of doomsaying, which has proved so wrong in the past.

I've organized the comments into categories. Obviously there is some overlap among them.

1. 
   Warming may not actually be occurring. Most respondents seemed to agree that the global average temperature is rising, but some did not. Their doubts hinged mostly on the reliability of temperature and CO2 reconstructions.
   
   
   
   
   1. This past winter was so cold. Where's the warming?
      
   
   
   2. The hockey-stick graph, which suggests the present warming trend is historically anomalous, is flawed. One respondent said it "has been proven false by many papers." Others worried that, at least, it downplays the natural variability in climate.
      
   
   
   3. The ice core data, one of the ways used to reconstruct past climate conditions, are dubious. They may not represent the global paleoclimate because they sample only a few locations; they appear to contradict the paleobotanic (leaf stomata) data; and they cannot be meaningfully compared with modern surface temperature readings, because they are distinct data sets.
      
   
   
   4. Ground temperature readings are subject to systematic errors such as the urban heat island effect. One respondent went further and complained that the Climatic Research Unit raw temperature data are "kept under wraps," so outside observers cannot verify that selection effects were properly accounted for.
      
   
   
   5. Ground temperature readings contradict satellite measurements.
      
   
   
   6. Reports of changes in polar climate are anecdotal and could be localized effects.
      
      
      
   
   
   
   


2. The present warming could be a natural uptick. Respondents pointed out that climate conditions fluctuate because of volcanism, the obliquity cycle, changes in solar output, and internal (chaotic) variability. Why, they asked, do climate scientists attribute all pre-industrial fluctuations to such natural causes and all industrial-age ones to anthropogenic ones? One respondent put it this way: "Every time I read that we have had 'the hottest summer in 100 years' I wonder what caused that hot summer 100 years ago."
   
   
   
   
   
   1. It could be a rebound from the Little Ice Age or indeed the last Pleistocene glaciation.
      
   
   
   2. It correlates "nearly perfectly" with solar output.
      
   
   
   3. It could be explained by variations in cloud cover, which alter how much sunlight the planet absorbs. The cloud cover could, in turn, be explained by variations in cosmic ray flux, modulated by solar magnetic cycles.
      
   
   
   4. It could be explained by decreases in Earth's magnetic field strength.
      
   
   
   5. It could be explained by natural methane sources, ranging from termites to the recently discovered aerobic processes in plants.
      
   
   
   6. It could be partly anthropogenic, but the natural variability is larger. A number of respondents argued that it is hubris to suggest that humanity could have such a large effect on the planet. "Many people seem to have a very exaggerated view of how significant we---and our activities---are," one wrote.
      
      
      
   
   
   
   


3. CO2 emissions cannot explain the warming. This is complementary to the previous item on natural causes, but I broke it out because respondents offered such a variety of hypotheses for why CO2 cannot cause warming.
   
   
   
   
   
   1. Negative feedbacks stabilize the climate system against the direct effect of added CO2. One respondent wrote: "The Earth's ecosystem is far too robust to be affected by this minor change [in CO2 levels over the past century]."
      
   
   
   2. If CO2 drove climate, changes in gas levels should be followed by changes in temperature. Yet paleoclimate data show the opposite: temperature changes first, then the gas levels.
      
   
   
   3. In modern times, temperature and CO2 have been only weakly correlated. For instance, there have been long periods of declining temperatures even as CO2 levels have risen. Climate scientists attribute this to masking by aerosol cooling, but their explanation struck many respondents as ad hoc. Also, most human emissions came after 1950, yet the rise in temperature started earlier.
      
   
   
   4. High CO2 levels earlier in geologic history (for example, during the late Ordovician) did not correlate with high temperatures.
      
   
   
   5. CO2 is a pittance compared to water vapor. By one estimate, it can cause only 0.2% to 0.3% of the warming.
      
   
   
   6. The greenhouse effect has "saturated"---further CO2 input does not increase it.
      
   
   
   7. No one has done lab experiments to study CO2 absorption.
      
   
   
   8. If CO2 causes warming, then the warmed air should rise, reducing air pressure at the surface. That is not observed. The correspondent who raised this objection cited Marcel Leroux's "Mobile Polar Highs" theory.
      
   
   
   9. Although CO2 may be a factor, rising levels of this gas are due not to emissions but to reduced uptake by the oceans (perhaps caused by a diminished phytoplankton population).
      
      
      
   
   
   
   


4. Climate models are unconvincing. In this category, I put the argument that, whatever the inherent plausibility of anthropogenic global warming, climate scientists have yet to present a solid case. The concerns here revolve around the inability of models to capture the complexity of the climate system.
   
   
   
   
   
   1. The correlation of CO2 levels with temperature is not causation.
      
   
   
   2. Weather forecasting is so unreliable. How could long-term climate forecasting be any better?
      
   
   
   3. The range of model predictions is wide, casting doubt on their reliability.
      
   
   
   4. Models can't even predict El Nino.
      
   
   
   5. Models can't even explain past data. One respondent wrote: "Claiming the models can predict climate is either wishful thinking, ignorance or deceit." Others were more circumspect. One of the few respondents to say what could change their minds wrote: "I'd like to see environmental data from the 1970s fed into today's climate models and the 'predictions' match what actually happened." Another asked whether models can explain climate over geologic time.
      
   
   
   6. Models are not proof. They can be used to prove anything. Being non-falsifiable, they are not really science.
      
   
   
   7. The burden of proof rests with those claiming anthropogenic warming. Because mitigating climate change would entail huge costs, and because past warming episodes have been natural, it is up to climate scientists to dispel all reasonable doubts---not to climate skeptics to prove them wrong.
      
      
      
   
   
   
   


5. Warming is a good thing, so we shouldn't try to stop it. The arguments here varied from specific benefits of warming to general reassurances that Earth and its inhabitants have done just fine in earlier periods of warming.
   
   
   
   
   
   1. It will increase humidity in tropical deserts and improve the lot of high-latitude regions.
      
   
   
   2. Higher CO2 levels encourage plant growth, and that's good.
      
   
   
   3. Sea level will rise gradually enough that we can readily adapt. The example the respondent gave was beachfront property. Its value will gradually decline as sea levels gradually rise, encouraging a move farther inland over the usual cycle of property investment.
      
   
   
   4. Historically, humanity has done better during periods of warmer climate.
      
   
   
   5. For most of its history, Earth has been warmer than today. The idea is that global warming is nothing to fear because it merely takes us back to a more natural set of conditions. Animals and plants seemed to do just fine in those periods of warm climate. One respondent wrote: "Our present chilly climate is the aberration when judged on a geological time scale." Over geologic time, the global mean temperature is 22 degrees C, versus today's 15.5 degrees C.
      
   
   
   6. It staves off the next glaciation, which we're due for.
      
   
   
   7. Claims that global warming has worsened storm damage, or will do so, are overblown. If storm damage seems to have increased, it is simply because more people live in storm-prone regions and their plight is more widely publicized than before.
      
   
   
   8. Attempts to stop global warming would do more damage they than avert. Warming might be bad, but it is better than the alternative, be it Kyoto or some other mitigation strategy. The underlying assumption here is that the null strategy---letting the economy adopt non-carbon energy sources as commodity prices dictate, without any explicit reference to global warming---carries the least costs.
      
      
      
   
   
   
   


6. Kyoto is useless, or worse. Many of the complaints were specific to the Kyoto Protocol, which sets up a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases.
   
   
   
   
   
   1. It would bankrupt us. One correspondent said Kyoto mandates "a practically unlimited expenditure of effort (and money, naturally)."
      
   
   
   2. Even it would not bankrupt us per se, it would divert resources from other, better-established priorities.
      
   
   
   3. It would reduce warming by a meager 0.02 degrees C.
      
   
   
   4. It exempts developing countries, whose emissions intensity and growth rates are much higher than those of developed countries.
      
   
   
   5. People may claim to support it, but their energy-wasting habits belie their true sentiments.
      
      
      
   
   
   
   


7. People who argue that human activity causes global warming can't be trusted. Now we get to what seems to be the single biggest complaint: doubts as to the competence or motivation of scientists and others who accept anthropogenic climate change. Many respondents perceive scientists as jumping to conclusions, haughtily dismissing doubters, refusing to take the time to explain things, and adopting absolutist positions. One respondent wrote: "What data would convince me? I don't know if data is the problem as much as needing to perceive an objective voice." Cataloging these complaints has been hard, but here is my attempt.
   
   
   
   
   
   1. Climate scientists have lost their credibility by making bad calls.
      
      
      
      
      
      1. They used to predict an imminent ice age.
         
      
      
      2. They falsely attributed the ozone hole to CFCs. The respondent who raised this point wrote that the ozone hole was clearly not due to CFCs because it began to recede before CFCs were phased out.
         
      
      
      3. They uncritically accepted the hockey-stick graph, which was clearly "fraudulent" from the start.
         
      
      
      4. They are guilty of doomsaying, which has been so consistently wrong in the past.
         
      
      
      5. They were too quick to connect last year's hurricane season with global warming.
         
         
         
      
      
      
      
   
   
   2. Climate scientists behave unscientifically.
      
      
      
      
      
      1. They ignore contrary data and alternative explanations. Respondents complained that climate scientists are guilty of groupthink. For them to admit they might be wrong would hurt their reputation and funding chances, so they tend to cling to positions with a fervor that the data do not justify. The IPCC was said to seek out evidence that supports its preconceived conclusion. Similarly, people complained that scientific journals do not publish contrary data, presumably because of negative peer reviews by dogmatic climate scientists.
         
      
      
      2. They are arrogant. Researchers, wrote one respondent, "go ballistic if anyone voices doubt." Another said: "A person with doubts, or simply unanswered questions, is shut out of the debate. One can only ask questions when it is phrased with unwavering support for warming."
         
      
      
      3. They have let themselves get caught up in activists' agendas.
         
      
      
      4. They themselves have an activist agenda. Respondents were suspicious that global climate change fits a little too conveniently into a certain environmentalist narrative that holds that humans can do no good (least of all if those humans are Republicans). Moreover, respondents said that if taken at face value, global warming seems to demand Soviet-style government action, which is problematic in its own right and a sign that the hypothesis is ideologically motivated. Because the U.S. is often singled out for its policies, there is a whiff of anti-Americanism, too.
         
      
      
      5. They have a financial interest in global warming. Now we're starting to get into more serious accusations that scientists push global warming because it helps them curry favor with granting agencies. One person wrote: "There are no grants available to disprove global warming.... [Researchers] gather at government's teats for monetary nourishment, telling mommy whatever she wants to hear." Kyoto, too, has created vested interests and a strong incentive to "massage data."
         
         
         
      
      
      
      
   
   
   3. Activists and journalists have gone overboard.
      
      
      
      
      
      1. Experts do not, in fact, argue that humanity is the main cause of global warming.
         
      
      
      2. The media sensationalizes warming. It focuses on worst-case scenarios and presents tenative research as definitive.
         
      
      
      3. Scientific American lost its own credibility on the subject when it printed a one-sided critique of Lomborg's book. One respondent claimed that the magazine "threatened legal action to stifle debate" about Lomborg's book.
         
         
         
      
      
      
      
   
   
   
   

Wildlife "experts" thin out the pupfish: "Years ago, Southern Nevadans would visit the desert oasis of Devil's Hole to swim, camp, and picnic -- possibly mimicking the behaviors of prehistoric man in that forbidding section of the Mojave, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas in today's Death Valley National Monument. Animals visited the springs at night. In the cavern springs lived tiny pupfish, which managed to survive these 'assaults' for a very long time. Then wise government functionaries decided to step in and fence off the area, in order to 'protect' the minnow. You're ahead of us, aren't you? Disruption inadvertently caused by scientists trying to study the pupfish are among the factors cited for the fact the creatures -- which numbered 533 when the G-men went to work and which still counted in the hundreds only two years ago -- now number only 84 and appear to be nearing extinction."

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

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.

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

ABIOTIC OIL THEORY GETS A BOOST

Mexico's giant Cantarell oil field, in the Gulf of Mexico off the Yucatan, was supposedly discovered in 1976 after a fisherman named Cantarell reported an oil seep in the Campeche Bay. Last week, Mexico announced finding another giant oil field off Veracruz, the Noxal, estimated to hold more than 10 billion barrels of oil.

Exploration yielded surprising results. It turned out that Mexico's richest oil field complex was created 65 million years ago, when the huge Chicxulub meteor impacted the Earth at the end of the Mesozoic Era. Scientists now believe that the Chicxulub meteor impact was the catastrophe the killed the dinosaurs, as well as the cause for creating the Cantrell oil field.

The impact crater is massive, estimated to be 100 to 150 miles (160 to 240 kilometers) wide. The seismic shock of the meteor fractured the bedrock below the Gulf and set off a series of tsunami activity that caused a huge section of land to break off and fall back into the crater under water.

Proponents of the abiotic, deep-earth theory of the origin of oil point argue that the deep fracturing of the basement bedrock at Cantarell caused by the meteor's impact was responsible for allowing oil formed in the Earth's mantle to seep into the sedimentary rock that settled in the huge underwater crater. Geologists have documented that the bedrock underlying the crater shows "melt rock veinlets pointing to large megablock structures as well as a long thermal and fluid transport" as part of the post-impact history. In other words, the bedrock at Cantarell did suffer sufficiently severe fracturing to open the bedrock to flows of liquids and gases from the deep earth below.

An important, but neglected, study of the bedrock underlying the Saudi oil fields provided strong evidence that the oil fields resulted from fractures and faults in the basement rock, not from a disproportionately large number of dinosaurs having died for some reason or another uniquely on the Arabian Peninsula. The study published in 1992 by geologist H.S. Edgell http://perso.wanadoo.fr/brcgranier/gmeop/Edgell_1992.htm argued that the Saudi oil fields, including the giant field at Ghawar, were "produced by extensional block faulting in the crystalline Precambrian basement along the predominantly N-S Arabian Trend which constitutes the 'old grain' of Arabia."

In other words, according to the abiotic, deep earth theory of oil's origin, we do not have to assume that all the dinosaurs herded like Elephants to Saudi Arabia at the end of the Mesozoic Era, where they died in a giant heap that produced oil. Bedrock cracks, whether or not due to meteor impacts, can serve to open the above sedimentary layers to trap oil deposits seeping upward.

Until the 1960s, geologists considered collisions of extraterrestrial objects with the Earth as interesting, but not necessarily important. Since Cantarell was discovered, geologists have come to realize that the intense shock waves generated in meteor impact events have significantly shaped Earth's surface, distributed its crust, and fractured its bedrock. Over 150 individual geological structures, many masked over by subsequent sedimentary deposits, have been identified as important, ranging from circular impact bowls measuring from only a few kilometers in diameter to as much as 200 kilometers (approximately 125 miles) in diameter. Moreover, Cantarell has stimulated interest in meteor impact structures as potential locations to explore in order to find oil producing sites.

In recent years, we have only begun exploring the Gulf of Mexico for oil. So far the results are impressive. Instead of imploring Congress to examine the oil producing potential of wood chips and switch grass, President Bush may be better advised to press ahead to extend oil exploration into the Gulf of Mexico to the limits current technology will permit.

Wouldn't the Bush administration and other "peak oil" advocates be surprised to find that a resource as close as the Gulf of Mexico might just rival the 260 billion barrels of oil reserves Saudi Arabia currently claims?

Human Events, 21 March 2006






CENTURY OF DATA SHOWS INTENSIFICATION OF WATER CYCLE BUT NO INCREASE IN STORMS OR FLOODS

A review of the findings from more than 100 peer-reviewed studies shows that although many aspects of the global water cycle have intensified, including precipitation and evaporation, this trend has not consistently resulted in an increase in the frequency or intensity of tropical storms or floods over the past century. The USGS findings, which have implications on the effect of global climate change, are published today in the Journal of Hydrology. "A key question in the global climate debate is if the climate warms in the future, will the water cycle intensify and what will be the nature of that intensification," said USGS scientist Thomas Huntington, who authored the study. "This is important because intensification of the water cycle could change water availability and increase the frequency of tropical storms, floods, and droughts, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere could amplify climate warming."

For the report, Huntington reviewed data presented in more than 100 scientific studies. Although data are not complete, and sometimes contradictory, the weight of evidence from past studies shows on a global scale that precipitation, runoff, atmospheric water vapor, soil moisture, evapotranspiration, growing season length, and wintertime mountain glacier mass are all increasing. The key point with the glaciers is that there is more snowfall resulting in more wintertime mass accumulation - another indication of intensification. "This intensification has been proposed and would logically seem to result in more flooding and more intense tropical storm seasons. But over the observational period, those effects are just not borne out by the data in a consistent way," said Huntington.

Huntington notes that the long term and global scale of this study could accommodate significant variability, for example, the last two Atlantic hurricane seasons. "We are talking about two possible overall responses to global climate warming: first an intensification of the water cycle being manifested by more moisture in the air, more precipitation, more runoff, more evapotranspiration, which we do see in this study; and second, the potential effects of the intensification that would include more flooding and more tropical storms which we don't see in this study," said Huntington.

Eurekalert, 15 March 2006






Gators and a Lot of Guff

Few experiences inspire awe like paddling a canoe through a Florida swamp filled with otters, turtles and tropical birds. Or spending the night on high ground surrounded by the subsonic thrumming of gators, harmonics dueling around you like a gigantic Aboriginal didgeridoo. As the resident of an island surrounded by Florida swampland, I understand the moral sentiment behind Michael Grunwald's "The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise." There is indeed such a thing as a swampy paradise. But I wouldn't go as far as Mr. Grunwald. His message, to quote one of his milder passages: "The Everglades is a test....If we pass it, we may get to keep the planet."

It is true that the disappearance of the Everglades, the wide, slow marsh river flowing seasonally from Lake Okeechobee (in the center of the state) south to Florida Bay, would be a great tragedy, but the "river of grass" isn't going to disappear, and it is decidedly not a test. It is too clearly sui generis to portend the fate of the planet. Nor can it exist in isolation from, you know, human beings.

For "pure" environmentalists, with whom Mr. Grunwald feels much sympathy, restoring the Everglades means re-establishing natural, rainy-season flooding from the Kissimmee River basin north of Lake Okeechobee to the southern end of the peninsula. Unfortunately, an Everglades that now stretches across four million acres and accommodates seven million people at its edges can never be "natural" in the sense that an unmanaged, self-sustaining ecosystem is natural. Nor should it be, at this point.

It is true that the original Everglades would be largely intact today if not for big, tax-subsidized drainage efforts. But those efforts began decades ago and cannot now be undone. And Florida would cease to exist if they were. Judged by wateriness alone, the state is closer to the Netherlands than Nebraska. Only a vast system of canals, pumphouses and banked-up rivers and lakes -- many begun under the New Deal and intensely elaborated in the early 1960s -- makes Florida habitable and farmable.

And makes cities possible. Without water management, there would be no Naples, Orlando, Miami and Fort Lauderdale -- no retirement and no spring break. The pure environmentalists are horrified by all this nonwatery activity. They haven't proposed a massive resident relocation yet, but it is implied by their Druidic vision of pristine nature. The population of the Orlando area has increased by millions since the early 1960s, when the nearby Kissimmee River was "channelized" to contain floods. Even more millions now live in the areas protected by the Okeechobee flood-control system to the south. Where are these people supposed to go if Florida is run by Gaia and not the state government's water authority?

Conservationists would prefer to "restore" the Everglades by first preserving what is still natural there -- by adjusting hundreds of small inefficiencies in damming and eco-management, even erecting new dikes for the sake of the Everglades themselves. Pure environmentalists, by contrast, want to expand the idea of restoration to "take back," at enormous cost, some of the most valuable real estate in the country.

A $9 billion Everglades restoration project, approved by Congress in 2000, has taken its cue from the pure environmentalists, dismantling various flood controls and de-channelizing various rivers. Mr. Grunwald doesn't like the project only because it does not go far enough. He would like statewide "sheet flow," letting water go where it will. That would include the front porch and cropland of many a contented Floridian.

A key problem for the restorers is that the environmental data they use to guide them come from 1960 and after. As it happens, the early 1960s ended a long (40-year) cycle of high-intensity, and frequent, hurricanes. The 40 years that followed -- true to pattern -- were less wet and windy. But we are now re-entering a peak-hurricane cycle, as Wilma declared last year and climatologists confirm. A lot of cheerful suggestions about dismantling flood controls are based on the wrong part of the sine curve.

Thus environmentalists are pushing to prevent the lowering of water levels in Lake Okeechobee in preparation for storms, because fresh-water releases from the second largest lake in America disrupt the ecosystem of the brackish Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries. Similarly, they attack the use of herbicides needed to keep canals clear of the weeds that clog pumps. But such resistance courts disaster. Dan Canfield, an aquatic ecologist at the University of Florida, warns that a "perfect storm" or even a series of smaller hurricanes could do as much damage to Orlando or south Florida as Katrina did to New Orleans.

Rather than accepting a compromise between humans and habitat, Mr. Grunwald radicalizes the process with coal-mine-canary metaphors. He cites the efflorescence of red-tide algal blooms, which are "massacring" Florida's "dolphins, oysters and manatees" by poisoning them. Yes, the algae are poisonous, but there are simply no data to show that they are more populous now because of manmade "runoff." They were spotted by the Spanish in colonial America and remarked upon by the scientist-explorer Angelo Heilprin in 1886, before a few thousand residents could affect Florida's waters. They are part of the state's natural ecosystem.

Similarly, Mr. Grunwald worries over phosphorus levels in the water, but he doesn't need to. Phosphorus is mined in Florida. The soil is full of it. Nature is responsible for most of the mineral's presence, runoff less so. In any case, Mr. Grunwald uses a pollution standard that has long been discredited: a phosphorus-to-water ratio of 10 parts per billion. Even the Clinton administration cast the standard aside. (A bottle of Evian water has 200 parts per billion.) Important scientists, too -- e.g., Prof. Curtis Richardson of the Duke University Wetland Center -- reject the ratio as evidence of pollution.

The Everglades debate, including such exaggerations, is reminiscent of the one that distorted forest management a decade ago. The fervor of environmental purists -- almost religious in its intensity -- has the effect of discrediting practical policies and leading to foolish ones. We had unnecessarily destructive forest fires a few years ago, until sanity returned to policy. Perhaps destructive floods will do the same in Florida. At some point, people must be seen as part of the nature we are trying to preserve.

Source






U.K. REALITY CHECK: GREEN TAXES FALL, CO2 EMISSIONS RISE UNDER LABOUR GOVERNMENT

Chancellor Gordon Brown has a chance in Wednesday's budget to put his money where his mouth is after campaigning by the government has helped put global warming on the world's political agenda. But if past experience is anything to go by, he will duck the issue, according to environmentalists who accuse the government of letting pro-green taxation slide and failing to promote clean technologies like microgeneration. "Green taxes have fallen under Labour, despite promises to increase them when they came to power," said Tony Juniper, head of Friends of the Earth. "At the same time, UK carbon dioxide emissions have risen."

The pressure is on Brown as the Conservative Party has decided the environment is a vote-winner. The green lobby underscores its case that Labour has consistently missed opportunities by noting that increases in fuel excise taxes have been frozen since 1999. As fuel prices remain high and volatile -- the reasons always given for the freeze -- there is no anticipation that Brown will bite the bullet on Wednesday. "The high level of petrol prices probably rules out any increases in excise duties on fuels," said Deloittes adviser Roger Bootle.

But with the surge in popularity of gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles designed for off-road use but more frequently now found in rich urban locations, environmentalists want Brown to bring in big road tax differentials. Friends of the Earth want a zero road tax on the most fuel efficient cars and up to 500 pounds on the least efficient. But Greenpeace -- noting that vehicle carbon dioxide emissions range from the Toyota Prius's 104 grammes per kilometre to the Range Rover's 389 grammes -- goes even further, calling for a top road tax rate of 1,800 pounds. "By rewarding energy efficiency and increasing taxes on dangerous and polluting forms of transport, Brown can help to combat climate change and end fuel poverty," said Greenpeace director Stephen Tindale.

The government has already announced that biofuels should make up five percent of road fuels by 2010 and Brown is expected to put flesh on the bones of the plan on Wednesday -- and possibly even take it further. Biofuels can be made using crops from grains to sugar and oilseeds as well as recycled cooking oils, and are a rapidly growing but hitherto neglected backwater of the green pantheon.

Also on the green wish list is a revamp of the tax system to penalise waste and promote efficiency in the battle against global warming that is blamed in large part on the burning of fossil fuels. The Green Alliance, a lobby group that counts academics, environmentalists and businessmen among its members, said in a recent report that energy efficient households should win tax benefits, and that water meters should become standard. It also proposed that environmentally unfriendly products like disposable batteries and high energy lightbulbs should likewise be penalised.

With the government in the throes of a study of how to meet future energy demand, Friends of the Earth called for major tax breaks and other incentives for household installations of micro-generation systems like solar cells and mini wind turbines. The government has said it will come up with a policy on micro-generation in the near future, although it is unclear whether Brown will announcement the first steps on Wednesday.

Reuters, 20 March 2006

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

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.

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

NORTH QUEENSLAND CYCLONE ROUNDUP







More pictures here

As I was born and bred in Innisfail, this story had more than the usual interest for me. I in fact remember well living through a similar cyclone in Innisfail when I was about 11.

By way of background it may be worth noting that all North Queensland houses have long been built to be cyclone resistant. Roofs are screwed down and the roof frame is bolted to the house. And the house is bolted to the stumps on which it is set and the stumps in turn are both deep-set in the ground and braced to withstand lateral force. So while many houses were damaged, most stayed intact enough to protect their occupants. The lack of deaths was certainly no accident.

I reproduce below comments from three different writers on the matter

Nobody killed in big Queensland blow

The devastation Hurricane Katrina caused in the United States probably helped save lives in Queensland's cyclone ravaged north, an expert said today. No-one was killed or suffered serious injuries despite the ferocious nature of category five Cyclone Larry, the most powerful cyclone to hit Australia in decades. However, Larry, which made landfall yesterday, destroyed homes, uprooted trees, downed powerlines, and ruined banana and cane crops in and around the town of Innisfail, which bore the brunt of its fury.

Professor Tom Hardy, a cyclone expert with the Australian Maritime College, said it was amazing that no-one was killed. He said the experience of Hurricane Katrina, which devastated Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama last August and killed more than 1000 people, probably helped save north Queenslanders' lives. "I think that the big hurricanes in New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico this last year made people realise 'Oh my gosh, that can happen here'," Prof Hardy said today. "Whereas if this happened a year ago, I think there would have been a few people (asked to evacuate) who would've said 'No, I'm just going to stay here, I've lived here for 20 years and nothing's happened'.

"New Orleans got whacked but I think Innisfail maybe learned a little bit about that." Prof Hardy said a combination of better building standards and warning systems also probably contributed to a lack of casualties. He said most north Queenslanders would have been unaware of what to expect from Cyclone Larry after decades of relatively minor cyclones. "I think we did a damn good job of being prepared for it because no-one died, and the damage will be something that we can recover from," he said.

Source





Technologically Advanced, Modern Economy, Survives Category 5 Cyclone without a Single Fatality

An interesting comparison below lifted from Jennifer Marohasy

A category 5 cyclone, more severe than Cyclone Tracy or Hurricane Katrina, lashes Far North Queensland and there is not a single fatality. It perhaps says something about Australia, modern economies and democracies and their potential capacity to adapt and to survive? Congratulations Far North Queensland! When we were less technologically advanced, that is on 10th March 1918 and a severe cyclone hit Innisfail, over 80 people died. Following is the note in the Bureau of Meterology records for that event:

"This cyclone is widely regarded as the worst cyclone to hit a populated area of Queensland. It crossed the coast and passed directly over Innisfail. Pen on Post Office barograph was prevented from registering below 948 hPa by flange on bottom of drum. 926 hPa read at the Mourilyan Sugar mill at 7 pm 10 Mar. The eye wall reached Innisfail at 9 pm. In Innisfail, then a town of 3,500 residents, only around 12 houses remained intact the rest being blown flat or unroofed. A report from the Harbours and Marine Engineer indicated that at Maria Creek the sea rose to a height of about 3m above high water (If this refers to HAT the water was 4.65m above the tide for that day). Around 4.40pm 10 Mar at Bingil Bay a tidal wave was seen surging in from the east into Bingil Bay taking the bridge over the creek 400 m inland. Mission Beach was covered by 3.6 m water for hundreds of metres inland, the debris reached a height of 7m in the trees. All buildings and structures were destroyed by the storm surge in the Bingil Bay Mission beach area. The surge was 2.6m at Flying Fish Point. Babinda also had many buildings destroyed and some reports suggest that not one building was left standing. There was widespread damage at Cairns and on the Atherton Tablelands. Recent reports suggest that 37 people died in Innisfail while 40 to 60 (mostly aborigines) lost their lives in nearby areas."

The lessons of cyclone Larry

Comment by Benny Peiser below noting that the North Queensland experience is great evidence of how technologically advanced societies can cope very well with even very dangerous natural changes and events:

Throughout human history, natural disasters such as cyclones and hurricanes have had devastating impacts on human life and societies. Until fairly recently, tens of thousands of people around the world were killed each year as a result of tropical mega-storms. Although it is technically impossible, for the time being, to completely neutralise the damage tropical storms bring with them, it is possible, as a result of effective disaster warning and preparedness to significantly reduce the potential risks to human life, infrastructure and the economy.

Disaster warning systems have become essential social mechanisms in the forecast, detection and mitigation of natural disasters. People exposed to natural hazards are increasingly relying on the effectiveness of warning systems. They are most effective for natural catastrophes that develop gradually and relatively slowly, such as floods or tropical cyclones. In 1991, for example, 600,000 people in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh were evacuated in advance of a tropical cyclone, thus minimising the number of fatalities to just over a thousand. 13 years earlier, in comparison, over 10,000 people were killed in a similar cyclone that transpired without any warning. The significant decline in storm-related deaths since 1950 has been attributed to improvements in tornado-warning systems.

The experience with Cyclone Larry only underlines this encouraging development. As Jennifer Marohasy points out above, Cyclone Larry, the strongest cyclone to have hit Australia in almost 100 years, has produced not a single fatality. Cyclone Larry demonstrates that technologically advanced, open societies which develop disaster early warning strategies and effective planning that provides resilience to such disasters can reduce the risks to human life to almost zero. The key lesson of Cyclone Larry is simple: Human adaptation, effective disaster planning, social resilience and proper insurance cover are beginning to transform tropical mega-storms from devastating human catastrophes into managable nuicances.






THE TRUTH ABOUT CHERNOBYL

When the Chernobyl nuclear reactor exploded the world held it's breath. We were told that a major catastrophe had taken place. Greenpeace, 10 years after the 1986 disaster said that the accident is "blamed for the deaths of some 2,500 people, has affected millions and displaced hundreds of thousands, many of whom have still not been able to return to their homes." Greenpeace called nuclear power "the most dangerous energy source yet devised by humankind".

Since that claim was made another long eight years have passed. But now the United Nations has released a new report disputing these claims. First we learn that results of the accident were not nearly as deadly as was originally projected. Second, we find that while the accident was horrific the official response made things worse for large numbers of people. Chernobyl also has some lessons on the detrimental effects of welfare.

And we will see that even after hundreds of scientists produce an exhaustive report on the matter the environmental ideologues refuse to change their tune and instead denounce the scientists.

The myth-busting report Chernobyl's Legacy was published by the Chernobyl Forum which is a collection of supranational organisations like the World Health Organisation, the UN Development Programme, the World Bank, the governments of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine and a host of other groups. It was formed in 2002 to study the effects of the disaster and the official response to it.

In 1986 when Reactor #4 exploded it was predicted that tens of thousands would die. The UN report notes that "Claims have been made that tens or even hundreds of thousands of persons have died as a result of the accident." But, these "claims are exaggerated".

This doesn't mean no one died. But the numbers directly attributed to the accident are much lower than most would assume. In 1986, the year of the accident, 28 people died from exposure to radiation. All of them had been emergency workers at the reactor. From 1987 until 2004 another 19 died and "long term radiation-caused illness may have led to the deaths" of additional emergency workers.

The main problems found among the general population was with young children who drank milk that was produced by cows that ate contaminated grass. For them there was a clear increase in thyroid cancer. But this cancer is very treatable. The report noted: "For the 1152 thyroid cancer cases diagnosed among children in Belarus during 1986-2002 and treated, the survival rate was 98.8%."

Except for these two groups the direct medical impact of Chernobyl was minimal. The UN report says: "Among the general population affected by the Chernobyl radioactive fallout, however, the radiation doses were quite low, and ARS (acute radiation syndrome) and associated fatalities did not occur."

Chernobyl took place in 1986. The socialist system collapsed in 1989. In the years immediately following the collapse living standards dropped. The economy was a total disaster and health care had become almost non-existent. People all across the region saw life expectancy decline. And among this general increase in death rates and illnesses the results of Chernobyl have to be found. But Chernobyl's effects were tiny in comparison to the larger picture. The 50 some deaths are firm numbers. But the projections of possible other deaths are estimates. The UN said: "the number of deaths over the past 20 years that may have been attributable to the accident are only estimates with a moderately large range of uncertainty. The reason for this uncertainty is that people who received additional doses of low-level radiation have been dying from the same causes as unaffected people. Moreover, in all the groups studied, of both emergency workers and resident populations, any increase in mortality as compared to control groups was statistically insignificant or very low. Estimates related to projected deaths in the future are even less certain, as they are subject to other major confounding factors. In reality, the actual number of deaths caused by the accident is unlikely ever to be known with precision."

The New York Times reported, "for the millions who were subjected to low levels of radioactive particles spread by the wind, health effects have proved generally minimal." They reported that there was no rise in leukaemia rates except for a small number of plant workers. Nor has any increase in birth defects been noticed nor decrease in fertility rates.

The reason for this is simple. Only people in the immediate vicinity of the accident were exposed to sufficient radiation to cause problems. Radiation is a natural phenomena and we are all exposed it through day to day living. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commissions puts it this way: "Radiation is all around us. It is naturally present in our environment and has been since the birth of this planet."

People seem mostly unaware that radiation is a natural phenomenon and that we are all exposed to low levels of radiation every day. The average American is exposed to 300 millirems of radiation per year and over 80% of that is from natural sources. But residents of Denver receive a dose of about 1000 millirems just because of the altitude of the city. A person working in a nuclear power plant is exposed to about 300 additional millirems per year while regulations limited occupational exposure per year to 5000 millirems. But pilots, airline crew members and frequent flyers can be exposed to an additional 500 to 600 millirems. That's quite a bit when you consider that living next door to a nuclear power plant only increases exposure by 1 millirem per year. But if even that worries you then remember that the human body produces about 40 millirems per year entirely on it's own.

Levels of exposure as a result of the accident, for most, was lower than what many people experience naturally. Chernobyl's Legacy stated, "that the average doses received by residents of the territories contaminated by Chernobyl fallout are generally lower than those received by people who live in well known areas of high natural background radiation in India, Iran, Brazil and China." ....

Of course environmental activists and antinuclear ideologues also had reasons to exaggerate the consequences hence the predictions of hundreds of thousands of deaths as a result of the accident. Add to that the natural tendency of the media to prefer the sensational aspects of any story and it is no wonder that people around the world were in an induced panic about the accident. Individuals who lived in the general vicinity suddenly found themselves being relocated, often against their will. They lost their homes and were subjected to regular medical check ups which had to raise their anxiety levels. Many of these people simple came to assume that they had been exposed and were doomed.

Yet fear itself is detrimental to health. Dr. Fred Mettler who lead the UN team said: "People have developed a paralysing fatalism because they think they are at much higher risk than they are, so that leads to things like drugs and alcohol use, and unprotected sex and unemployment."(16) The Chicago Sun-Times reported that "anxiety caused by fear of the radiation is causing serious mental health problems, and worries and `shows no signs of diminishing and may be even spreading,' the International Atomic Energy Agency said..." And the Washington Post noted that the report said "that lifestyle disease, such as alcoholism, among affected residents posed a much greater threat than radiation exposure." .....

So how has the UN report been taken? The media finds it a fascinating story because it has the element of sensationalism that sell papers or boost ratings. But the beneficiaries of Chernobyl and the ideological groups that use the accident for their own agendas are furious. They refuse to accept the report and instead denounce the UN for producing it.

Greenpeace, in particular, is most upset. William Peden from the group said that the projection of maybe 4,000 deaths in total from the disaster "is ridiculous" and "many thousands more may die in the decades to come." Jan van de Putte, another Greenpeace activist says the UN was "denying the real implications" of Chernobyl and that is "insulting [to] the thousands of victims". He also said it is dangerous because it may lead to "relocating people in contaminated areas".

But one clear example of how ideologues bend science around politics was when Greenpeace "said that the 4000 deaths only relate to a studied population of 600,000 whereas radiation was spread over most of Europe and the reports omits the impact on millions of Europeans." It omits it because there isn't any. Most of the radiation fell within a few dozen miles of Chernobyl and the levels of radiation, to which the surrounding 600,000 people were exposed, was mostly within the range of normal exposure from natural sources. Beyond there, to the rest of Europe, exposure levels were below natural levels.

One antinuclear coalition is the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. They immediately attacked the report and repeated the Greenpeace argument. They argued that the 4000 projected deaths only take into account the 600,000 in the immediate vicinity and "given that tens of millions of people were exposed to Chernobyl radiation... [a study] among the entire affected population would be expected to find far greater casualties." They report that there is "no safe exposure level to radiation."

So Denver is dangerous. The US Capitol Building is dangerous. In fact every human body is dangerous. Those international flights to environmental confabs around the world typically expose the activists to more radiation than they would get living next door to a nuclear power plant for a year. But it's nuclear power they are wanting to stop so that risk gets exaggerated and blown out of proportion. And it is this type of scare-mongering that is ruining the lives of so many deemed to be "victims of Chernobyl".

More here






Senate will try again to open up drilling in Arctic wildlife refuge

The Senate plans to take up a measure again to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M. said today. Less than three months after failing to attach similar language to a Defense Department spending bill, drilling supporters hope to use a budget bill to permit exploration in the nation's largest, untapped oil deposit.

Proponents are taking that tack because budget bills, under Senate rules, are not subject to a filibuster. That means the measure would need only a simple majority rather than 60 votes to get through the Senate. When drilling supporters tried a similar strategy last year, it was blocked by moderate House Republicans opposed to drilling in the northern Alaska refuge. Whether they can round up enough votes in an election year remains uncertain.

Meanwhile, Domenici's committee is expected today to approve a bill that would allow drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, despite continued opposition from Florida leaders.

Source

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

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.

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

Far-Left agenda hurts Greens in Tasmanian elections

The Greens were once very influential in Tasmania

The Greens thought themselves king-makers but instead suffered a king-hit likely to cost them at least one seat and official party status. The Greens, who had hoped to force their policy platform on a minority government, were yesterday rethinking policy and strategy instead. Kim Booth looked likely to lose in Bass, depriving the Greens of the four members needed for the extra parliamentary resources that go with official party status. Labor believes the Greens may yet lose a second of its four MPs, Tim Morris in rural Lyons, but this appears unlikely.

Greens leader Peg Putt blamed the drop in their vote -- from 22per cent in a poll four weeks ago to 16per cent on Saturday -- on the "grubbiest, most vicious" smear campaign in Tasmanian political history. "Despite coming into the poll looking like we could gain more seats, we just couldn't come back over the top of the negative fear and smear campaign that was run against us from so many quarters," she said. "Perhaps we need to take another look at the fact that negative campaigning has become the norm in Australian politics and that other parties are using that to drive where the electorate goes." She said the party would also take a look at its policy of refusing to guarantee support for budgets in a hung parliament and whether it had failed to focus sufficiently on core environmental issues. She accused both major parties, logging companies, big business and the evangelical Exclusive Brethren group of running smear advertisements against them.

Labor warned a minority government would deter investment and destroy the economy, with Premier Paul Lennon claiming house prices would fall if he failed to achieve majority government. A $100,000 advertising campaign funded by a mostly anonymous group of businessmen also pleaded for majority government. The Greens were also targeted by advertising paid for by forestry companies, while ads placed by the Liberals and Exclusive Brethren church members claimed Greens' policies would threaten the state's social fabric.

Source






COSMIC RAYS SET CLIMATE CHANGE ON EARTH, EXPERT SAYS

Stars, not greenhouse gases, are heating up the Earth. So says prominent University of Ottawa science professor Jan Veizer. He knows challenging the accepted climate-change theory may lead to a nasty fight. It's a politically and economically loaded topic. Yet, he is speaking out about his published research. "Look, maybe I'm wrong," he said. "But I'm saying, at least let's look at this and discuss it. "Every one of these things (parts of his theory) has its problems. But so does every other model" of how Earth's climate behaves.

Veizer says high-energy rays from distant parts of space are smashing into our atmosphere in ways that make our planet go through warm and cool cycles. Cosmic rays are hitting us all the time -- a well-known fact. What's new is that researchers are asking what cosmic rays do to our world and its weather.

- Last year, the British science journal Proceedings of the Royal Society published a theory that cosmic rays "unambiguously" form clouds and affect our climate.

- Florida Tech and the University of Florida are jointly investigating whether cosmic rays are the trigger that makes a charged thundercloud let rip with lightning.

- In 2003, scientists from NASA and the University of Kansas suggested that cosmic rays "influence cloud formation, can affect climate and harm live organisms directly via increase of radiation dose," an effect they claim to trace over millions of years of fossil history.

Veizer has published his theory in Geoscience Canada, the journal of the Geological Association of Canada. The article is called "Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle". In his paper, he concludes: "Empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate, with greenhouse gases acting only as potential amplifiers." The idea is that cosmic rays hit gas molecules in the atmosphere and form the nucleus of what becomes a water vapour droplet. These in turn form clouds, reflecting some of the sun's energy back to space and cooling the Earth.

Yet the numbers of cosmic rays vary. When there are more cosmic rays the Earth is colder. When there are fewer cosmic rays the Earth is warmer. "The question is, therefore, 'Where do we have lots of cosmic rays?' " Most rays come from younger stars, which are clustered at some regions in the galaxy through which our solar system has passed its 4.5-billion-year history. Our own sun deflects some of these rays away, but the sun's activity grows stronger and weaker. All of these factors can change the number of cosmic rays that hit us. The Earth's magnetic field also blocks some cosmic rays. Scientists can reconstruct records of that field for the past 200,000 years, and he argues there's an extremely close match between cold times in our climate and times when the magnetic field allowed more cosmic rays to hit us.

Even in recent times he argues that other cosmic factors can affect our climate as plausibly as carbon dioxide, or more so. The warming of Earth in the past 100 years -- about 0.6 degrees Celsius -- matches a time of the sun's growing intensity, he says.

Questioning the fundamentals of climate change -- the theory that man-made gases such as carbon dioxide are building up and warming our climate -- is a fast way to start a nasty, personal fight in the science world. But Veizer's credentials make it tough to challenge his findings.

The recently retired professor still holds a research chair and supervises grad students and postdoctoral fellows. A native of Bratislava, Veizer left because Russian troops entered Czechoslovakia in 1968. He's been building up honours ever since in the field of geochemistry -- learning about Earth's past by the chemistry preserved in rocks and sediments.

The Royal Society of Canada called him "one of the most creative, innovative and productive geoscientists of our times," and added: "He has generated entirely new concepts that have proven key in our understanding the geochemical history of Earth."

He won the 1992 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize, worth $2.2 million Cdn, representing the German government's highest prize for research in any field. The prize ended up financing his research. The judges said he "has in front of his eyes the overall picture of the Earth during its entire 4.5 billion years of evolution," and he is "one of the most creative ... geologists of his time."

Yet, for years he held back on his climate doubts. "I was scared," he says.

Source







NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR INCREASED FREQUENCY OR INTENSITY TREND OF TROPICAL STORMS

(From Journal of Hydrology Vol. 319, No 1-4, pp. 83-95, March 15, 2006)

Evidence for intensification of the global water cycle: Review and synthesis.

By: Huntington, Thomas G.

Abstract

One of the more important questions in hydrology is: if the climate warms in the future, will there be an intensification of the water cycle and, if so, the nature of that intensification? There is considerable interest in this question because an intensification of the water cycle may lead to changes in water-resource availability, an increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical storms, floods, and droughts, and an amplification of warming through the water mapor feedback. Empirical evidence for ongoing intensification of the water cycle would provide additional support for the theoretical framework that links intensification with warming. This paper briefly reviews the current state of science regarding historical trends in hydrologic variables, including precipitation, runoff, tropospheric water vapor, soil moisture, glacier mass balance, evaporation, evapotranspiration, and growing season length. Data are often incomplete in spatial and temporal domains and regional analyses are variable and sometimes contradictory; however, the weight of evidence indicates an ongoing intensification of the water cycle. In contrast to these trends, the empirical evidence to date does not consistently support an increase in the frequency or intensity of tropical storms and floods.

[...]

4. Summary

Substantial uncertainty regarding trends in hydrolclimatic variables remains because of differences in responses among variables and among regions as well as major spatial and temporal limitations in data. There are large gaps in spatial coverage for some hydrologic indicators; therefore, trends in these areas are unknown. The risk in assuming that trends in these areas are comparable to those measured in other related areas is that the observed trends may simply represent regional redistribution rather than true global intensification. In spite of these uncertainties, the observed trends in most of the variables are consistent with an intensification of the water cycle during part or all of the 20th century at regional to continental scales (Table 1).

Consistency in response among multiple variables lends observational support for theoretical arguments and GCM predictions that warming will likely result in further increases in evaporation and precipitation. The theoretical hydrologic response to a warming-induced intensification as manifested in an increasing frequency and intensity of tropical storms and floods (Knutson and Tuleya, 1999; Tuleya and Knutson, 2002; Karl and Trenberth, 2003) is not supported by the preponderance of evidence to date. Because of the long-term return intervals and stochastic nature of the occurrence of extreme events, however, it may require substantially more time before a change in frequency can be detected (Free et al., 2004). The lack of detectable trends in the frequency and intensity of tropical storms during the 20th century should not be taken as evidence that further warming will not lead to such changes in the future, particularly as the rate of warming in the 21st century is expected to be several times greater than in the 20th century (Cubasch and Meehl, 2001).

On balance, the weight of evidence is consistent with an ongoing and future intensification of the hydrologic cycle and emphasizes the need for improving our capabilities to monitor and predict the consequences of changing hydrologic regimes. Future improvements in spatial resolution and longer periods of data collection, combined with enhanced process-level understanding of complex feedbacks involving water, will reduce our current levels of uncertainty. Primary hydrologic feedbacks include increases in atmospheric water vapor that result in more heat trapping, changes in cloudiness and the properties of clouds that can increase or decrease surface warming, changes in snow cover and snow or ice surface melt that influence albedo and therefore the radiative balance (Abdalati and Steffen, 1997; Karl and Trenberth, 2003).

(The Doi (permanent) address for the full article above is here)







THE STERN REVIEW 'OXONIA PAPERS': A CRITIQUE

(Governments usually manage to get the answers they want out of enquiries they set up. Britain's Stern review would appear to be a particularly egregious and unscholarly example of that -- as the following group of eminent signatories points out)

By: Ian Byatt, Ian Castles, David Henderson, Nigel Lawson, Ross McKitrick, Julian Morris, Alan Peacock, Colin Robinson and Robert Skidelsky

In this note we comment on the three related documents (the 'Oxonia papers') that were issued at the end of January 2006 as the first fruits of the Stern Review of the economics of climate change. These comprise a discussion paper entitled 'What is the Economics of Climate Change?', Sir Nicholas Stern's Oxonia Lecture with the same title, and a short Technical Annex on 'The science of climate change'. Except where otherwise indicated, the page references that follow are to the discussion paper.

We believe that these documents constitute a false start: they do not provide a sound basis for the further work of the Review team. If the Review exercise is to serve a useful purpose, its treatment of the issues has to be more inclusive, more informed, and less dominated and constrained by questionable or mistaken presumptions.

'The science': a misleading picture

Taking their cue from the Technical Annex, both lecture and discussion paper have opening sections that deal with scientific aspects. What is concluded under this heading forms the point of departure for what both documents have to say about economics: as Sir Nicholas puts it in his lecture (p. 5), 'the science... actually shapes all the economics that follows'.

From all three papers, one would gather that the main scientific issues relating to climate change are now substantially settled. Both lecture and discussion paper take as given the state of the world, and the prospects and possibilities for the future, that emerge from the work of climate scientists as summarised in the Annex. The picture of reality thus presented is accepted and reproduced unquestioningly.

This picture is sombre, even dramatic; and accordingly, far-reaching inferences are drawn for economic policy. Lecture and discussion paper take the view that the starting-point for economic analysis must be that 'climate change is a serious and urgent issue' (pp. 3 and 6), since 'the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion supports the view that climate change represents a real and growing threat' (p. 9). It is true that at one point (p. 18) the discussion paper notes that 'it is important to recognise and incorporate any benefits from climate change'; but aside from this passing observation, and understandably in view of what is presumed here about 'the science', the whole emphasis is on the risks and dangers arising from anthropogenic global warming.

As to what follows from this supposedly science-based diagnosis, Sir Nicholas holds (p. 5 of his lecture text) that 'strong action has to be taken quite soon'. The action in question chiefly comprises measures and programmes to curb greenhouse gas emissions - in a word, 'mitigation'. True, the discussion paper makes the point (p. 19) that 'promoting and managing adaptation is an essential policy response'; and in a recent talk that he gave in Delhi, Sir Nicholas has made the point that 'this is not a contest between mitigation and adaptation'. But in lecture and discussion paper alike it is asserted that 'we will have to go far beyond the actions currently agreed if we are to stabilise greenhouse gases at any acceptable level' (p. 3). A corollary, since such far-reaching actions, to be effective, must be world-wide in scope, is that 'Climate change should become a central element in the whole set of international engagements' (p. 27). An ambitious world-wide programme to limit greenhouse gas emissions is represented as a matter of urgency.

In our view, these various interrelated judgements are too confident and unqualified. What is said here about the scientific aspects gives insufficient weight to the pervasive uncertainties which still surround projections of climate change, largely because of the extraordinary complexity of the system under study. This complexity has been emphasised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) itself, in its Third Assessment Report, where the point is made that:.

'In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.'

We think that these uncertainties are underplayed in the Technical Annex, and hence in the lecture and discussion paper: it is in fact misleading to speak of 'the science', as though it were virtually settled.

Although the Oxonia papers take it that there is a consensus among climate scientists, they offer no survey evidence. The only recent survey of climatologists of which we are aware, which was conducted by the highly-regarded Institute of Coastal Research (GKSS) in Germany, concluded that 'These results...seem to suggest that consensus is not all that strong and only 9.4% of the respondents "strongly agree" that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.' The survey also found that fewer than a quarter of respondents strongly agreed that the IPCC reflects the consensus of thought in the climate science community.

The treatment of scientific aspects in these documents is unbalanced; and for this reason alone, it does not provide a firm basis for the radical policy recommendations that both the lecture and the discussion paper derive from it.

[.....]

An issue which is likewise not touched on, in either the lecture or the discussion paper, is whether governments should continue to treat the IPCC as their sole permanent and virtually unchallenged source of information, evidence, analysis, interpretation and advice on the whole range of issues relating to climate change. Even if the IPCC process were less open to question professionally, there are grounds for concern about placing such heavy reliance, in matters of extraordinary complexity where huge uncertainties prevail, on a single source of analysis and advice and a single process of inquiry. Viewed in this light, the very notion of setting consensus as an aim appears as questionable if not ill-judged.

Implicitly, the lecture and discussion document treat the IPCC's role and conduct as above question. In so doing, they limit the scope and the potential usefulness of the whole Review, since such an exercise should consider, as a central question, how far, and in what ways, the treatment of climate change issues by the Panel and its member governments could be improved. In taking this restrictive stance, the Oxonia papers disregard, among other pertinent writings, the report from the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs. This is an extraordinary omission.

When the Stern Review was launched, the official press announcement said that the team 'will conduct a comprehensive review of the evidence'. Reading the Oxonia papers leaves the impression that such a treatment will not be attempted, still less achieved.

Conclusion

On the evidence of these three documents, the Stern Review appears as a misdirected exercise. By taking as given hypotheses that remain uncertain, assertions that are debatable or mistaken, and processes of inquiry that are at fault, the Review has put itself on a path that can lead to no useful outcome. Unless Sir Nicholas and his team think again, and redefine their task, their final report will serve only to illustrate, and to reinforce, the present mishandling by governments of issues relating to climate change.

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.

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

ECO-TERRORISTS GO TO JAIL

A follower of an eco-terrorism group and two other Newcastle residents were sentenced Friday in Sacramento federal court for their roles in attempted firebombings of buildings under construction. Ryan Daniel Lewis, the 22-year-old admitted adherent of the Earth Liberation Front - a radical group that targets suburban development - was sentenced to six years in federal prison for orchestrating arsons in Placer and Amador counties in late 2004 and early 2005. Two of his acquaintances, sisters Lili Marie Holland, 21, and Eva Rose Holland, 26, were sentenced to two years each in prison. In an earlier plea agreement, the women faced three years and three months behind bars. A fourth person arrested in the case, Jeremiah Colcleasure, 21, also of Newcastle, is scheduled to be sentenced in May. He pleaded guilty to attempted arson earlier this month.

Immediately after U.S. District Judge Edward J. Garcia sentenced Lewis on Friday, the bespectacled Newcastle man - who had been free on bond since November - was remanded into custody and led out of the courtroom past a row of his sobbing relatives. Garcia called Lewis the ringleader who recruited the Holland sisters and another acquaintance to exact acts of violence on property under misguided ideals. At times, the judge chided defense attorneys for misusing the term "idealism" in explaining their clients' actions. "I don't understand why you and the other lawyers talk about ideals," Garcia said to Lewis' attorney. "I consider this type of terrorism (a) most serious crime."

Earlier in the day, Garcia had allowed the Holland sisters, who reiterated their remorse before the court, to surrender to authorities April 28. Lewis did not make a statement before the judge. Friday's sentencing marked the first successful prosecution of ELF activity from the Oregon border to Bakersfield and should serve, authorities said, as a cautionary tale for others influenced to act on behalf of the shadowy organization.

In January, three other followers of ELF were arrested on suspicion of plotting a bombing campaign on local targets, including Nimbus Dam and fish hatchery and a forest genetics lab in Placerville. "Domestic terrorists mistakenly believe they are on the moral high ground, but their actions are those of cowards," U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott told reporters after the sentences were handed down. "Let today's sentencings be a warning to idealistic young people that if they make the wrong decisions, they will spend several years in prison."

But Lewis' attorney, Timothy Zindel, said he did not believe the six-year sentence was warranted for a "kid who made a serious mistake." He said Lewis was not a terrorist. "I don't agree that the Earth Liberation Front is a terrorist organization; (terrorism) it's a word that is cheapened in how it's thrown around," Zindel said after the sentencing hearing. Anyone involved in a "protest crime has to watch out ... the federal government is very unforgiving."

The trio, who were arrested last year, admitted conspiracy to plant incendiary devices at an upscale housing development in Lincoln after leaving a Christmas party in 2004. On Dec. 27, 2004, four homemade incendiary devices with kitchen timers were found in two homes under construction. "ELF" was painted in a cul-de-sac and other graffiti was discovered, including the statements "U will pay" and "Leave."

Lewis also confessed to placing firebombs inside an office building under construction in Auburn and devices inside apartments near completion in the Amador County town of Sutter Creek early last year. The bombs in Lincoln and Auburn failed to ignite, and sprinkler systems in Sutter Creek managed to abate much of the damage. However, one device did spark a fire, causing at least $243,000 in damage.

In the original indictment, the defendants faced a minimum of five years and up to 20 years in prison on each charge, including conspiracy to commit arson, attempted arson and additional counts of arson against Lewis. In October, however, Lewis and the Holland sisters pleaded guilty as part of an agreement reached with the prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney R. Steven Lapham. They were sentenced Friday on charges reached in their plea agreements: two counts of attempted arson and one count of arson against Lewis; one count each of attempted arson for the Holland sisters.

More here






GREENIES WHO PUT THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTH IS

When millionaire businessman Johan Eliasch decides to head for his country estate, it involves a slightly longer trek than a drive to the Cotswolds. After leaving his office in London's Mayfair, it is a 12-hour journey by air and road before he can view his 400,000-acre plot in the heart of the Amazon rainforest. The estate is the size of Greater London.

Eliasch, 43, a banker, film producer and chief executive of the Head sports equipment company, has bought it from a logging company to protect the plants and wildlife. He sees himself as a pioneer on the new frontier of climate change. Eliasch, who is also deputy treasurer of the Conservative party, is part of a growing trend towards "green colonialism". Rich people with chequebooks instead of pith helmets, charities and trusts are buying vast swathes of the Third World or "renting" the timber rights to stop trees being cut down. It is a breakaway from the methods that have characterised the international conservation movement for the past 50 years.

The traditional approach relied on agencies and charities cajoling governments in developing countries to set aside state-owned land to create national parks and nature reserves. Now individuals and organisations are taking direct responsibility for the land.

Eliasch, who is valued at 355 million pounds in The Sunday Times Rich List, is believed to have paid about 8 million for his jungle park in Brazil. He plans to visit again next month. "The Amazon is the lung of the world," he said last week. "It provides 20% of the world's oxygen and 30% of the fresh water." He is now lobbying insurance companies to follow his lead with billions of dollars of their own money. "In theory you can perhaps buy the Amazon for $50 billion," he said. "It would be a very quick payback because a hurricane like Katrina will cost them a similar amount in payouts. "You can plot a direct correlation between cutting down trees which absorb carbon dioxide and the global warming and extreme conditions which lead to hurricanes like Katrina."

He is campaigning for conservationists like himself to be given carbon credits for preserving trees, similar to the financial grants made to timber companies to plant saplings after they have cut down acres of forest. He will use any such money to buy more forest.

Eliasch, the son of a Swedish industrialist, has invited scientists to search his segment of the Amazon for wildlife and plants that may have beneficial extracts for medicine. His estate lies 1,600 miles northwest of Rio de Janeiro. It is just north of the Madeira river, an Amazon tributary, where dolphins swim alongside piranhas. Two species of squirrel-sized marmoset monkeys were discovered in the region six years ago. "The biodiversity is amazing," said Eliasch.

Across the Atlantic, Paul van Vlissingen, 65, the owner of Calor Gas who is worth 1.1 billion pounds and owns an 81,000-acre estate in Ross-shire, has spent 15 million pounds buying or leasing land in four African countries to preserve as wildlife parks. Van Vlissingen, who is terminally ill, said in a statement earlier this year: "There is so much more to be done if the great natural museums of Africa are to be saved and restored."

Bill Adams, a professor of conservation at Cambridge University, said: "It is an interesting development. If there is an ethical motive for buying the land, it is likely to be effective. "But I do not know about encouraging insurance companies to buy up the rainforest. I don't think their business managers will go for that."

Source






GLOBAL WARMING NOT FEATURED IN NEW HURRICANE STUDY

The latest Science magazine features a paper linking increasing sea-surface temperatures to global increases in the most severe hurricanes, but it does NOT mention global warming as the cause. Think the newspapers won't?

Over the last few decades, hurricane climate experts have largely eschewed linkages between global warming and increases in the number or strength of hurricanes. That is, until late last summer, when a series of highly publicized papers claimed otherwise. The papers pointed out that sea-surface temperatures (SSTs), the essential fuel of hurricanes, have been increasing in the primary hurricane-development regions pretty much globally since 1970 (the start of global satellite hurricane track and intensity records). Over that time, hurricane intensities have also been on the rise. And since global warming causes SSTs to rise, that must be the cause of the recent spate of strong hurricanes.

The problem with this logic is that hurricanes require a very specific environment to flourish. High SSTs are a necessary but not sufficient condition to spin up strong storms. It is also important that there be very little change in the winds with height; that near surface winds blow in such a manner to cause moist air to gather near the storm's center; and that temperatures decline rapidly with height to promote a very unstable atmosphere, among other factors. One criticism of the studies from last summer is that the focus was almost entirely on SSTs only. In order properly to link hurricane trends to SSTs (and global warming), you need to discount trends in these other, critical variables.

This week's Science paper by Hoyos, Agudelo, Webster and Curry again uses data on global hurricane intensity since 1970. They report that the global increase in category 4 and 5 hurricanes is linked to SST but not any of the other factors.

The authors base their case on the observation that SSTs are increasing in all ocean basins over the period of record, but the other key hurricane-development variables they examined do not show consistent relationships across the same basins. For example, in the six ocean basins they examined, the authors found a significant increase in atmospheric moisture levels in the East Pacific only, and vertical wind shear (the change in wind height) only weakened significantly in the North Atlantic (more on this observation later).

Let's look at their results more carefully. Figure 1 shows the trend in an index of "moist static stability." Essentially, strong hurricanes can more easily form when this index value is low. In five of the six ocean basins, the authors find a statistically significant decline in moist static stability. But it's especially interesting to note that climate models (run under scenarios of increasing carbon dioxide) are also consistent in their forecasts of temperature changes in the lower atmosphere. They all report that the atmosphere will become more stable (e.g., Knutson and Tuleya, 2004). But that's the opposite of what's shown in Figure 1. So the only way to make the case that these changes are carbon dioxide-induced is to ignore the climate models, and who's willing to step forward and do that?

An examination of the number of category 4 and 5 storms from 1945-present shows that we are indeed currently experiencing a high frequency of major storms. But recent years are comparable to another fairly active period in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The aforementioned Science papers only considered the period from 1970 onward, because those data are believed to be the most accurate and internally consistent. However, the long term data from both the Western Pacific and the North Atlantic (the world's two most active regions) are reasonably good, especially with respect to the number of strong storms, which are obviously more likely to be detected.

Another factor in the recent spate of strong storms is a long-term cycle in SSTs. In the Atlantic, for example, all hurricane researchers are aware of the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO), a somewhat periodic cycling between high and low SSTs in the North Atlantic, including the primary hurricane formation zones. Figure 3 shows one of several incarnations of the AMO. Note the clear tendency toward positive AMO values beginning in the late 1960s. There were a lot more strong hurricanes from the 1940s through the mid-1960s (positive AMO), which was followed by a quiescent period (negative AMO). Any evidence of increasing SSTs based on a data set that begins around 1970 will identify an artificial trend that is really part of a longer-term cycle. The Science authors had perfectly legitimate reasons to begin their analysis in 1970, but a broader perspective is needed before you can call that increase a global warming signal.

With respect to North Atlantic hurricanes, an interesting paper was just published by Jyotika Virmani and Robert Weisberg in Geophysical Research Letters. One reason SSTs can build up is the lack of evaporation, as evaporation plays a big role in cooling ocean surface waters. Virmani and Weisberg showed that in 2003, 2004 and 2005, the position of the Bermuda High pressure system shifted from its mean position, forcing much weaker trade winds in the primary hurricane development region. Weaker winds mean less evaporation and higher SSTs. They also calculated that most of the 1-2 degrees celsius warming of ocean waters observed can be accounted for by the observed slackening of the trade winds. And when they examined the long-term pattern of trade winds in this region, the winds began weakening in 1970.

A major hurricane is a very unique event - a lot of disparate factors must become organized in just the right way to allow a major storm to develop. While high SSTs are one critical ingredient, they alone are insufficient to generate a whopper storm. SSTs have been increasing since 1970, as have major hurricanes, but the connection is not nearly as simple as some authors are suggesting. And careful scrutiny of ALL of the available data shows the connection to global warming is less than tenuous.

TCS DAILY, 16 March 2006






EXPERTS CLAIM GLOBAL WARMING THREATENS TOWER OF LONDON!!

Shrieks take the place of evidence

UN experts are meeting to determine the risks which climate change poses to some of the world's special places. The UN's cultural and scientific wing Unesco says climate change threatens World Heritage Sites such as the Great Barrier Reef and the Tower of London.

The two-day meeting aims to develop plans of action to mitigate the threat. Environmental groups want such action to include pledges to reduce emissions, but the US says Unesco has no authority to act on climate change.

In a position paper issued in advance of the Paris meeting, the US says Unesco has no brief to consider anthropogenic climate change as a "threat" to protected sites because it is an unproven theory. Its position appears very different from that of the British government, which is funding the meeting. ....

BBC News Online, 16 March 2006

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

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.

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