Climate Change as Trojan Horse

CO2, Environment, Government, Natural Gas, Oil

Jul 152010

Will You Trade Liberty for Virtue? For Greens to Succeed, America Must Fail

Therefore, U.S. Vehicle Emissions Are 5.4% of Total World Man-made CO2 Emissions

(The above figure was corrected when we found the latest (?) world vehicle totals (750,000.000)

Globally, road transport is responsible for about 16% of man-made CO2 emissions. It is a common misconception that global warming is mainly caused by cars and trucks. It is important to understand that there are other, larger, contributors and ALL sources of CO2 emission must be addressed if the problem is to be solved. The chart is all global man-made CO2 emissions.

If, there is, in fact, a problem. The chart is from the International Association of Vehicle Manufacturers, here. If you don’t trust a global professional association that represents evil, polluting corporations, you are encouraged to do what I do: search the internet. I just thought it interesting that, if OICA is right with their chart, it is of more than passing interest that most of us thought vehicles were responsible for a greater share of CO2 emissions.

Incredibly, the EPA considers CO2 to be 95% of vehicle emissions. That implies to me, a non-scientist, that either the millions of tons of CO2 being constantly dumped into our atmosphere are having no provable or observable effect, or that there is something wrong with the theory of man-made green house gases causing global warming. It also seems to imply that the 5% of emissions that are sulpher dioxide, nitrogen oxide, ozone, carbon-monoxide, methane, lead and particulate matter have been successfully reduced to a non-threatening state, either to humans or the planet.

If humans are only contributing gases to the atmosphere that the planet is easily able to dissipate, and we are not demonstrably harming humans after putting 250 million vehicles on the road in the US alone, why are we being told that it is necessary to replace our entire ten trillion dollar economy with a so-called “Green Economy” – and who benefits from this idea?

Why our apparent interest in having eight dollar a gallon gasoline, as in Europe, when their prices are born out of necessity; they have no oil of their own, and most of their streets were designed hundreds of years ago, necessitating small vehicles for local access. They also impose onerous gas taxes in order to discourage driving. We, on the other hand, are said to be running out of oil and gas; our only alternative is to quickly find alternative, non-polluting fuels. This notion is known as “Peak-Oil” theory. Peak oil always makes sense as a concept, based on the very intuitive notion that there is no such thing as an inexhaustible resource, and so we must prepare for the day when that resource is exhausted.

Problem is, we have more oil today than when experts of all kinds (qualified or not) began predicting peak supplies. We don’t have a shortage of ‘fossil fuels” or other types of energy in the United States; we have a shortage of energy defined as recoverable or explorable at a given price in defined geographic areas. We have a shortage of drilling equipment and trained workers. We have a shortage of government leaders dedicated to continue the use of fossil fuels because they’ve bought into the theory that to do so would harm the planet. They are tragically, destructively wrong, and their persistence in this fantasy is liable to cause an ‘energy bubble’ that is based on having borrowed — on behalf of taxpayers — billions of dollars to be thrown at a non-existent problem fostering destructive, nonsensical solutions.

Which brings us to an overwhelming question: Are the American People so eager to be seen as virtuous that they are unwilling to let themselves see that self-interested governments and businesses, working together, are relying on that need for virtue to create opportunities for themselves. And are there enough Americans left whose BS detectors are well-developed enough to recognize a persistent propaganda campaign that is intended to rob them of their birthright so that others can construct a new society that benefits themselves and whoever they choose?

WHAT IS THE NEED? Surely, before deciding that our constitutional republic and free market economy are failures, we can pause to ask: Why the supposed necessity for change? The folks who used to warn against man-made Global Warming and have now abandoned that claim – in the face of enormous opposition – in favor of the even-more-general Climate Change (now, that’s chutzpah!), would seem to assert the following reasons:

1) Protect planet.

Does it really need protecting? All of humanity occupies only 1% of the entire surface of the planet. Our scientists have only just begun to understand weather and climate, even with the most sophisticated technology. The computer models constructed so far (on which the IPCC depends; the EPA then depends on the IPCC) have been unable to accurately predict even short-term events. They have also been unable to use the models to accurately describe historical events that correspond to GHG theory. MIT Meteorology professor Richard S. Lindzen explains the implausibility of the theory, here.

Some food for thought:

# CO2 is .038% of the atmosphere (one ten-thousandth of one per cent), a trace-gas that is alleged to be responsible for the disastrous warming of the planet due to human – mainly American – emissions.

# This insignificant trace-gas has limited ability to absorb heat. CO2′s ability to absorb heat is logarithmic, meaning the more CO2 there is, the less heat it can absorb. The first 20ppm of CO2 absorbs more heat than the next 500ppm and so forth.

# Apparently a mathematical error involving vectors contributed to the belief that massive amounts of CO2 were heating the earth (the climatologists counted both the inbound and outbound radiation, rather than allow them to cancel each other out – a zero sum).

# Our atmosphere does not, in fact, act like a greenhouse – clouds are not a pane of glass.

# The entire atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, absorbing heat and radiating it back out into space ( See scientist Alan Siddons article The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory by clicking on it at this blog’s Post titled Greenhouse Gas Theory Explained).

# A commenter to that Post said the theory is all about feedbacks – AGW says that clouds are a positive feedback because they reflect heat back to the surface; he claims its actually a negative feedback, forming clouds and producing rain when the surface heats, allowing radiation to exit the earth.

30,000 Scientists Say “No” to “Settled Science”

30,000 scientists signed a petition stating that the science on Global Warming/Climate Change is in its infancy. There is no consensus that we even have a problem that there is any more to do about than what we have been doing. Science does not operate on consensus, in any event – it is a method by which any theory can be overthrown by the next proof. This requires vigorous debate over any theory, which in turn requires broad publication and review of both theory and data by your scientific peers. This simply does not exist in the AGW world, where bogus science is cranked out to support a political agenda, backed by massive government grants. All of this is verifiable by anyone wishing to inform themselves, as opposed to embracing a political agenda disguised as science.

And last year 130 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel expressing their dissent from global warming fears and its non-science. They called the phenomenon a “pseudo religion” and said that CO2 has no effect on global temperatures.

While you’re scouring the internet to satisfy your thirst for truth, please note the following:

The Polar Bear population is increasing – they are marine animals, accustomed to swimming; Kilimanjaro’s snowmelt has nothing to do with CO2; the ocean is neither acidifying nor rising; Antarctica’s glaciers are not disappearing; Arctic ice is thicker rather than wider, and does not melt and cause sea-rise (Archimedes’s Principle); hurricanes are not increasing in number and are not caused by AGW; highest recent temperatures were recorded in the 1930′s; steady cooling since 1998; sunspot activity biggest influence on variation; CO2 abundant in ice ages and in cold desert at night; Many scientists think CO2 increases follow warming periods.

That’s just off the top; I’m sure you can improve on the list with a little patient Googling at sites that are not dedicated to promoting the Alarmists’ attempts to fool you into giving them the political power to save the planet on your behalf, an endless task requiring monitoring of nearly every facet of life on earth.

Finally, regarding CO2. All of life on earth is part of the carbon chain. We are carbon. We breathe in nitrogen and oxygen, and exhale carbon dioxide. This makes plants and trees happy, because that is what they need for nourishment. CO2 is plant food. (And since we have a lot of forests, away from the big cities full of voters terrified of CO2, much of our emissions are sopped up by the trees.)

Not an elegant explanation, and I may have some of it wrong, but hopefully enough fact and rationality to keep you from being manipulated by dangerously ill-informed do-gooders. Go find your virtue elsewhere.

2) Curb pollution.

Our pollution problems have been left to the tender mercies of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. They’ve been around for forty years and had 17,384 employees as of 2010. They have ten regional offices which coordinate and supervise the environmental agencies of the fifty states. They have a reputation, at least among non-progressives, as being a very politicized agency, but are very proud of their progress in cleaning the environment, and the improvements, especially to air and water over the last forty years are manifest throughout the country. In other words, we have the problem covered, now and going forward.

3) Escape Peak.

Getting straightforward information on oil and gas supplies is tough, because both government and business have reason not to be candid. The current government, as most of us know, does not want anything to do with fossil fuels, and wants us to cut back on our use of energy of all kinds, by government mandate, if necessary. Oil and gas companies need to perpetuate the idea of scarcity in order to keep prices high. They also have to fool their competitors regarding their intentions about a particular exploratory project. They’re a lot like treasure hunters; even if they are pretty sure they know where the treasure is – maybe due to a map that only they possess – they can’t let others know until they find it and make their claim. Once having made that claim in oil or gas, they may be reluctant to reveal what they believe to be the full potential of the new find.

Thus, Peak Oil has become a self-perpetuating legend — constantly disproven by the passage of time and each new oil or gas discovery — that is embraced nevertheless, because the story is useful to so many different actors. If you are of a mind to hate ‘fossil fuels’ because you think they damage the planet, “Peak Oil” is for you. If you are a government that thinks the only way to curb energy usage growth is to raise prices, “Peak Oil” is a gift. If you’re in the energy business, well, as I said…

So, where is one to go for accurate info regarding availability of supplies. The United States Geological Survey(USGS), which reports on such matters, is too constrained by the definitions of the things on which they report. Most oil is owned by sovereign nations, who are either mum or mendacious on the subject. (Some probably don’t really know any data more useful than that these resources are a great political piggy bank.) What if we were able to ask someone who was recently prominent in the field and is now retired and no longer constrained by the exigencies of the business?

John Hofmeister, the recently retired CEO of Shell Oil is selling a book (Why We Hate the Oil Companies). We don’t know to what extent he is willing to stretch the truth in either the writing or the promoting of the book, but in all other aspects he should be a reliable source of information regarding his life’s work, which happened to be fossil fuels. He says we have more oil than Saudi Arabia. Sure, read the sentence again. Not a typo. He thinks there’s a trillion barrels in the Shale of the Piceance Basin of Western Colorado. He says another 500 billion bbl in the Bakken Formation of Wyoming, North Dakota and Canada. Maybe another 100 billion bbl off of our coasts. (We use about 9 million barrels/day.)

The Bakken and part of Colorado are being drilled right now, but probably not with the major actors that are needed to satisfy our growing fuel demands (no, we’re not ‘addicted’ to oil; it fuels our prosperity and creates our jobs and products). The shallow offshore fields are off limits by government fiat, as well as some inland exploration sites. The deeper offshore sites in the Gulf are very productive, but the federal moratorium on new projects will, in Hofmeister’s estimation, cost a million barrels a day, causing a $1.50-$2.00 rise in gasoline prices, and a recession in the Gulf states.

It would come as a surprise to most Americans, but not to environmentalists (who hate the idea) that the Russians, and perhaps the Chinese, drill for oil on a completely different theory regarding its origins. They don’t believe there is any such thing as Fossil Fuel, that is, oil and gas resulting from the long-ago decay of plants and animals. The largest Saudi oil well, for instance, would require a cube of decayed matter 19 miles per side to explain that well’s volume of oil. They believe, instead, that oil is formed under great heat and pressure beneath the earth’s mantle, and is spun up along the tectonic faults. The opponents of this theory say the oil would not survive the heat, and that chemical analysis always shows biological identifiers in the oil.

A topic for another Post, but a good source for in-depth info is this article with hyper-links. Nevertheless, as of mid-2009, the Russians have become the world’s biggest oil producers.

4) Protect diversity.

This is a bit of a puzzle. Richard Heinberg is an avowed opponent of the abiotic oil theory and has written about it extensively; you can google him and a lot will come up. I read one of his analyses of the phenomenon, wherein he concludes that, although there may, indeed, exist the possibility that oil is continuously formed in the bowels of the earth, it really doesn’t matter, because he considers an overabundance of oil to be as much a disaster as a shortage. He goes on to cite CO2 emissions & Global Warming, of course, but then, without explanation, he adds the last two items on our list: diversity and other resources.

I’m just going to wing these two. If you want to make a research project of them, be my guest. The diversity issue seems to be an anti-mobility complaint. The more fuel we have, the more travel, inevitably resulting in destruction of habitat as we build roads and continue to “sprawl.” This is a viewpoint widely held by those who would have us all living in high-density communes, eating locally grown foods, and walking or cycling everywhere. In a country of 300 million people who rely on mobility and individual choice, there is no way for this to be other than a disaster, but that seems to be the dream.

5) Preserve resources.

This also seems to be pretty straight-forward, Rousseau-ian anti-modernity stuff. If we keep using oil and gas and driving cars powered by internal-combustion engines, we will also continue to use the finite supplies of all the components that go into cars (steel, aluminum, fabrics, plastics, etc.), which just encourages destruction and selfish “materialism.” These folks are resistant to our history of discovering uses for materials that previously had either limited utility, or none at all. It is our inventiveness, based on our freedom, that turns these organic and inorganic materials into what then become known as “resources.”

Unless we try to let government decide everything, we will alway invent and innovate; always creating new technologies and processes. Americans are free to choose not to like technology; it’s just that without it, approximately 200 million of their fellow citizens would no longer be able to survive. Put more simply, it’s our technological infrastructure that allows so many to live in comfort and security, rather than “On Walden Pond.”

Now, I understand that the BS detector I’ve begged you to sharpen up can easily be turned on me. Fair enough. Just remember that there are determined people who think the Constitution is a malleable document written by a bunch of outmoded bigots who don’t understand that Social Justice requires a modern, Progressive mindset. These folks are unabashedly part of a movement that is out to create a just world. Unfortunately, our old, unjust world will have to be discarded in the process. Environmentalism is a great political tool for capturing the minds of even the most sophisticated; after all, who is opposed to saving the planet? And it’s just dandy as a vehicle for obtaining — and keeping — political power.

Our founders were brilliant, and prudent enough to understand that even a democracy can turn into a tyranny of the majority. That’s why they made it so hard for the federal government to reach consensus, to have a runaway branch, to bully the states, or to interfere in the lives of individual citizens. This country is neither a commune nor a parking place for folks who think their physical presence entitles them to be called Americans. America is a shared concept about liberty and protecting the individual from capricious rule.

Environmentalism is about replacing that. The CO2 part is just hot air.

Anti-Capitalism as Climate Agenda

Culture, Energy, Environment, Government, History, Legislation, Natural Gas, Oil, Solar, Wind

Apr 232010

Tell the Greens We've Had Enough

Al’s Better Environment

THE CLIP BELOW SHOWS our Socialist Climate Czar, appointed by President Obama without Senate confirmation. Wanting World Government is fine if your job isn’t to advise the chief executive of only one of those governments. Our government. Unless, of course, her boss also wants a world government.

JANUARY, 2011 UPDATE: Socialist Climate Czar Browner finally exits the Obama administration.

Alright! We’ve now sat out our Earth Hour in the dark, partied our way through Earth Day celebrations (champagne, horns and confetti) and we’re careening our way toward the grand climax of Earth Month. It just doesn’t get much better. Meanwhile, out in media-land, drums of ink have been slathered, billions of electrons exhausted and countless events attended, all to congratulate ourselves on our obsession with a wholesome environment. It’s the 40th year of a movement kicked off by an ambitious Democratic Senator trying to get out in front of the nascent protest movement manned by hippies, Marxist academics and assorted Nativists (see Rousseau, Thoreau, Marx).

Little did Senator Gaylord Nelson realize that the war protesters, collectivists and amateur anthropologists of then would evolve into an environmental movement that has a realistic goal of controlling the earth’s ecology through control of world government. Like you, I am more than enthusiastic about natural conservation; about clean air and water and preservation of resources. Where we part company is when these common-sense measures become a matter of personal virtue for some, and a pathway to political power for others. (The latter, if you haven’t noticed, sets the agenda for the former.)

And having that agenda dictating measures to be taken in their private lives is welcomed by the faithful because it enhances their sense of virtue. Intellectually lazy and dependent on propaganda from the movement leaders, they and their friends practice Environmentalism as a New Age religion, while the distant theoreticians scarcely feel the need to share where their group allegiance will take all of us.

I feel threatened by the movement because of where its leaders want to go, and why. They surely know, as we all should by now, that this whole thing is not about our environment, or energy, or species: it’s about the age old ‘Leftists against Capitalism.‘ Their plan is to replace it with something else, perhaps to be decided later, but initially through world government via the United Nations. That means that our tired old paradigm born of the American Revolution will have to go – slowly, to be sure, but with finality. Dustbin of history, and all that. Since I like the founding principles of the US and don’t feel that we are experiencing a crisis of either Capitalism or the planet, I am totally opposed to going beyond prudent conservation principles and traditional free-market democracy – our Constitutional Republic.

On the lighter side, we have a bit of sardonic humor from George Carlin. If foul language – which I personally adore – bothers you, skip on – if you wish – to my further fulminations on the environment and Leftist True Believers, following the 8 minute video. In the interest of brevity, I’m going to be relying more on bullet points and hyperlinks to source material. Some of this is speculative, and some simply can’t be known for sure at this stage of development, so if you’re looking for proof and certainty, you’re on your on, as am I. We both have to fight through a haze of imperfect information, plus our own preconceptions and comforting convictions – and simply work hard to find verifiable answers.

I have a proposition here; one I’ve raised before and will undoubtedly raise again, and that is this: Without Anthropogenic Global Warming caused by industrial nations’ emissions of CO2, we have no planetary emergency. Without the emergency, or its probability, what we refer to as fossil fuels would not have to be restricted beyond the common-sense need to curb pollution. Before spending trillions and completely upending our way of life in order to please both the virtuous and well-meaning, as well as the empire-building mal-intended, maybe we ought to tune up our BS detectors and dig a lot deeper into what’s going on here.

This calls for a quick anecdote. I’m attending a local live theater performance of a play called “The Johnstown Flood” and I’m writhing in mental anguish as the clearly communist-inspired playwright has a young man striding about the stage and shouting for us to all stand up against the injustice of unequal pay. I looked at my fellow attendees who were all twice the age of the actor – for sure – and probably the playwright as well, and were able to pay $53 a ticket and another $20 for parking only because of the Capitalist system being denounced for their edification. Theater folks, you see, think that they are supposed to be our conscience. Since their conscience is, culturally, Socialist, it’s all that’s on hand to deliver for our supposed benefit.

But here’s what I concluded with 20/20 hindsight. All of us sat and quietly listened to this crap – resenting every minute, with no trace of entertainment benefit or provocative adult insight (something the theater used to do prior to becoming our ‘conscience’ – out of politeness. Out of courtesy, no one would boo or shout out denouncements, let alone throw tomatoes, a tradition long since past. And I wondered if ourcowardice about this matter didn’t actually extend to the environmentalists and socialists, as well. How many of us simply won’t tell our friends, or our Congress-Creature, or anyone, really, that Socialism is a murderous disaster. Americans whine, but are too polite to complain. We vote for personalities instead of substance. Now, it’s serious, and unless we grow up, fast, the consequences will be as cruel as any in history.

Back to ‘Earth’: Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, and a man thoroughly despised by the Greens as a traitor, has a short, interesting piece here reminding us of the great strides that have been made with the environment and how stubborn environmental doctrine victimizes those in the developing world who need (fossil fuel) help most. Take a quick look, right here.

In the same vein, but with more data points is Reason Magazine’s Science Editor, Ronald Bailey, author of “Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution.” He traces the history of Earth Day, its founder and goals. His conclusion is that those goals have been almost completely realized and it’s time for a new approach. Enjoy reading it, here.

Since we’re addressing both Climate Change and Global Green Ambitions, there are two more references that are pertinent. In other words, the science and the politics. On the political side, we turn to a site called undue influence.com, where they devote a lot of energy to following the politics of the Green Movement. Since ruling the world is an idea that is considered too crazy or threatening to discuss openly, the proponents of global green dominance have to be listened to pretty closely in order to determine their agenda, and whether it seems possible. Ron Arnold of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise hit pay-dirt at a conference, and he shares his insights here. Read the whole thing.

Finally, for source material, we direct you to a really interesting paper! It’s titled “ Oil is NOT a Fossil Fuel and AGW is Non-Science.” This is not a title meant for provocation, but a serious introduction to the Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic oil creation, one that has turned them (Russia) into the largest petroleum producing and exporting nation in the world today. This is a very accessible read, with links to the science reports. The second part of the article delves into the nonsense of Anthropogenic Global Warming, with references to proofs (supposedly) of its impossibility. He also references the Petition Project, in which 30,000 scientists avow that the science is not remotely settled. You can read the whole thing here.

Since that’s quite a bit to digest for one “Earth Blog,’ I think I’ll just limit myself to some provocative assertions, some linked, some not – more a matter of time spent in hyperlinking than the availability of source material. Most everything in the non-comprehensive list that follows is actually contained in the links I’ve already provided, above. Enjoy.

There is NO emergency for the planet

Cheap fuel is at the heart of our economy

We ARE self-sufficient in energy

There are NO fossil fuels

If petroleum is non-fossil in origin, is natural gas also?

If abiotic, there is no such thing as “Peak Oil”

Abiotic means geothermal, i.e. sustainable

If oil is unlimited, discontinue unnecessary subsidies of renewables

If renewable subsidies discontinued, possible ‘Green Bubble’ could result

Stop covering our land with windmills and solar panels (they’re ugly, inefficient,expensive and marginal)

Stop putting our corn in gas tanks, raising food prices

Stop the government’s ban on exploration and drilling

Nuclear is safe to dispose and recycle

Nuclear is expensive to build; very cheap to operate

Modern exhaust-gas filters and scrubber, together with carbon sequestration, make coal our cheapest and most plentiful US resource

Yucca mountain is fine: good for storing current accumulation; not necessary with modern plants

Smaller nuclear plants mean faster build, economical, more numerous

Battery disposal may be ‘Achilles-wheel’ of electric car

Cost to consumer of battery-replacement (shortens car life; raises cost; disposal problem)

There is NO AGW

CO2 is essential to life on earth (we exhale it; trees inhale it – it’s essential plant food)

CO2 is a trace gas

An increase in CO2 doesn’t increase ambient temperature

CO2 is a RESULT of warming; not a CAUSE

Warming is caused by the sun: Heliocentric Global Warming

Predicted global catastrophe is based on flawed computer modeling

Models have failed to accurately predict short term or recent past

Not possible to predict long term

Scientific community has been bought by grant money

Government and Industry have bought into a “Green Economy”

Scientific method has been abandoned, i.e., consensus is a political word, not science

Many specialists (retired, non-academic, i.e., beyond coercion) say climate science is young and indefinite

Our air and water have already been purified substantially over the last 40 years

It is poverty, not prosperity, that destroys habitat

DDT is safe

GMO food is safe

Climate, energy and food debates are actually about Capitalism vs. Socialism

Premise behind movement is that technical progress and financial complexity are self-destructive; in order to heal humanity, we must return to a more simple, biologically harmonious way of life (see Rousseau; Thoreau; Marx).

Western NGO’s are governments-in-waiting, dedicated to world government on socialist model, w/environmentalism as pathway to power

Marx regarded Capitalism as a necessary step on the path to socialism

Mass transit is impractical and unnecessary (large urban, approx 1.7% of all transport)

The automobile is our liberating reward for study and work and good government.

Transport is technically-evolving with private-sector funds

Governments want to OWN the sources of taxation; eliminate the independent wealth-creator

Urban sprawl is code for affordable growth

Central Planning is inherently authoritarian and regressive

Glaciers are supposed to melt (results in beneficial fresh-water lakes)

Polar Bears are aquatic and increasing in number

Some of our viewers on this site have written requesting more opinion; well, the above should be enough to last you until the next Earth Day!

Rebuttal to “Spanish Green Jobs Failure”

Environment, Government, Markets, Wind

Mar 302010

Wind-Power NIMBY

I’m hoping this post will put to bed this contretemps between the DOE and its renewables detractors, at least for this blog. The American Wind Energy Association reports in the paragraphs below that the Universidad Rey San Carlos study that concludes that more than two private sector jobs are lost for every “green job” created is methodologically incorrect. Basically, it rather fatuously concludes that if the US governments’ assumptions and methods aren’t employed, there can simply be no correct conclusion.

The report’s writers twist themselves into knots justifying the official rationale for replacing our fossil-fuel economy with their “green obsession,” implying it just isn’t fair to look at the displacement of jobs in the private sector caused by the green substitute when it’s clear that it is only due to unfair and prolonged subsidies to fossil fuel that have made our current unsustainable and destructive energies possible.

They utterly ignore the green movement’s complicity in preventing both nuclear power and domestic fossil fuel development. There is no mention that, without the scientifically disproved green gas theory (read our blog on the topic on these pages) and the non sequitur global warming theory, the need to reduce Co2 would be non-existent. Without the theory, we are back to traditional conservation measures, for which there is broad consensus, and the ability to use the latest technology to achieve energy independence with our own abundant US resources.

When reading the piece that follows, from the American Wind Energy Association (a wind-power trade association), note that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and its operator, the producer of this report, are all academic and business interests heavily invested, for years, in the idea of replacing our fossil-fuel economy with one of their own imagining. (And it’s good to remember that natural gas is a fossil fuel and that, because of the 200 million or so internal-combustion engine cars on American roads, we will be using petroleum products for many years to come. And that these folks want to artificially create a demand for their “solution” to their “problem” and don’t care how many poor people won’t be able to afford to get to work on $4/gal and up fuel.)

Don’t forget to click on the link in the AWEA notice that follows. It’s the NREL report “rebutting” the Spanish Rey San Carlos study. Enjoy.

NREL Rebuts Spanish Jobs Study


The Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has released a scathing critique of the so-called Spanish Jobs Study, which stated that renewable energy eliminates two jobs for every jobs it creates. The NREL analysis states that “The analysis by the authors from King Juan Carlos University represents a significant divergence from traditional methodologies used to estimate employment impacts from renewable energy. In fact, the methodology does not reflect an employment impact analysis. Accordingly, the primary conclusion made by the authors – policy support of renewable energy results in net jobs losses – is not supported by their work.” The Spanish jobs study was cited by columnist George Will, members of Congress and others as a reason to oppose the efforts by the Obama Administration and Congress to promote renewable energy as a means of increasing energy security, reducing carbon emissions and creating jobs. The Spanish study criticized actions by the Spanish government to promote renewables, saying it did so at the expense of job creation on other sectors of the economy. The NREL analysis says, “The study ignores the role of government in facilitating growth of valued new industries. Governments invest in renewable energy technologies to promote the growth of the industry as a whole. Emerging (renewable energy) technologies have not achieved levels of maturity and economies of scale that traditional technologies have; nor have they benefited from years of public and private investment. As a result, there may be a role for government to play in leveling the playing field between new and old technologies and in supporting emerging technologies. In the United States, all conventional energy technologies received government support in their early stages, and still benefit from government investment today.” N.B. There is a disclaimer by the Department of Energy at the foot of the report, saying govt not responsible for content.(It was written by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, which operates the NREL. LOL.

Danish Windmill Blowback

Environment, Markets, Wind

Mar 292010

Looks Better on the North Sea

Wind-Power Danes strike back. It seems the stake-holders in the Danish wind power system took umbrage at the CPOS report. So they formed a consortium to launch a study of their own and write a rebuttal. The Project is named CEESA (Coherent Energy and Environmental System Analysis), and, as you will see in the 36 Page report, here, they assembled quite a diverse team. Our sincere thanks to Renee Nilson, a reader who brought this to our attention.

Abstract

In a normal wind year, Danish wind turbines generate the equivalent of approx. 20 percent of the Danish electricity demand. This paper argues that only approx. 1 percent of the wind power production is exported. The rest is used to meet domestic Danish electricity demands.

The cost of wind power is paid solely by the electricity consumers and the net influence on consumer prices was as low as 1-3 percent on average in the period 2004-2008. In 2008, the net influence even decreased the average consumer price, although only slightly.

In Denmark, 20 percent wind power is integrated by using both local resources and international market mechanisms. This is done in a way which makes it possible for our neighbouring countries to follow a similar path. Moreover, Denmark has a strategy to raise this share to 50 percent and the necessary measures are in the process of being implemented.

Recently, a study made by the Danish think tank CEPOS claimed the opposite, i.e. that most of the Danish wind power has been exported in recent years. However, this claim is based on an incorrect interpretation of statistics and a lack of understanding of how the international electricity markets operate. Consequently, the results of the CEPOS study are in general not correct. Moreover, the CEPOS study claims that using wind turbines in Denmark is a very expensive way of reducing CO2 emissions and that this is the reason for the high energy taxes for private consumers in Denmark. These claims are also misleading. The cost of CO2 reduction by use of wind power in the period 2004-2008 was only 20 EUR/ton. Furthermore, the Danish wind turbines are not paid for by energy taxes.

Danish wind turbines are given a subsidy via the electricity price which is paid by the electricity consumers. In the recent years of 2004-2008, such subsidy has increased consumer prices by 0.54 €¢/kWh on average. On the other hand, however, the same electricity consumers also benefitted from the wind turbines since the wind power decreased the electricity market price on Nord Pool. On average during 2004-2008, such effect decreased the consumer prices by 0.27 €¢/kWh and consequently the net influence during this period increased consumer prices by only 0.27 €¢/kWh equal to only 1-3 percent of the final consumer prices. In 2008, the net influence of wind power actually decreased the consumer price slightly by approx. 0.05 €¢/kWh. Consequently, the influence of Danish wind turbines on the consumer electricity price is negligible.

Danish Wind Power Bust

Environment, Government, Wind

Mar 282010

High Cost, Low Benefit Eco-flop

Good Intentions

Sorry for the crazy font size and spacing, but came off a PDF on the Danish think tank site (CPOS). If you read the”Obama Wind Power Deceit” piece on this blog, you’ve gotten the promised Spanish Renewables failure report, and here we have the experience of the Danes.

It’s a 39 page report, here. Enjoy.

WIND ENERGY

THE CASE OF

DENMARK

Center for Political Studies

CEPOS is an independent think tank that promotes a Denmark based on freedom, responsibility, private enterprise and a limited state power.

Executive summary

PART 1: The real state-of-play and its hidden costs

Denmark generates the equivalent of about 19% of its electricity demand with wind turbines, but wind power contributes far less than 19% of the Nation’s electricity demand. The claim that Denmark derives about 20% of its electricity from wind overstates matters. Being highly intermittent, wind power has recently (2006) met as little as 5% of Denmark’s annual electricity consumption with an average over the last five years of 9.7%.

In the absence of large-scale electricity storage, any modern electricity system must continuously balance electricity supply and demand, because even small variations in system voltage and frequency can cause damage to modern electronic equipment and other electrical equipment.

Wind power is stochastic,especially in the very short term (e.g., over any given hour, 30 minute, or 15 minute period). This has created a completely new challenge that transmission system operators (TSOs) all over the World are only now learning how to handle. Some draw from Denmark’s experience. But Denmark’s special circumstances make its experience of limited transferability elsewhere.

Denmark manages to keep the electricity systems balanced due to having the benefit of its particular neighbors and their electricity mix. Norway and Sweden provide Denmark, Germany and Netherlands access to significant amounts of fast, short term balancing reserve, via interconnectors. They effectively act as Denmark’s “electricity storage batteries”. Norwegian and Swedish hydropower can be rapidly turned up and down, and Norway’s lakes effectively “store” some portion of Danish wind power.

Over the last eight years West Denmark has exported (couldn’t use), on average, 57% of the wind power it generated and East Denmark an average of 45%. The correlation between high wind output and net outflows makes the case that there is a large component of wind energy in the outflow indisputable.

The exported wind power, paid for by Danish householders, brings material benefits in the form of cheap electricity and delayed investment in new generation equipment for consumers in Sweden and Norway but nothing for Danish consumers. Taxes and charges on electricity for Danish household consumers make their electricity by far the most expensive in the European Union (EU)

1. The total probable value of exported subsidies between 2001 and 2008 was DKK 6.8 billion (€916 million) during this period. A similar amount was probably exported prior to 20122 and larger quantities will be exported following the commissioning of 800 MW of new offshore wind capacity in 2013. The wind power that is exported from Denmark saves neither fossil fuel consumption nor CO2 emissions in Denmark, where it is all paid for. By necessity, wind power exported to Norway and Sweden supplants largely carbon neutral electricity in the Nordic countries. No coal is used nor are there power-related CO2 emissions in Sweden and Norway.

[1 According to the OECD, Denmark has the World’s highest tax burden. This applies across a slew of tax sources, including personal income and value added tax. 2 The wind power subsidy arrangements before 2001 were made directly by Government and are not available to the public]

2. Wind energy has replaced some thermal generation in Denmark. It has saved an average emission of about 2.4 million t per year CO2 at a total subsidy cost of 12.3 billion DKK or an average cost of 647 DKK (€ 87 or $124) per ton CO2. Wind power has proven to be an expensive way to save CO2 emissions.

3. The cost of Denmark’s wind capacity to Danish consumers is exacerbated by its inability to use so much surplus electricity. The surplus will increase in 2013 when 800 MW of new offshore capacity is commissioned, increasing Denmark’s wind production by 2.7 TWh per year. Nearly all the additional wind power will be exported and this will further depress prices; nearly all the subsidies paid by Danish consumers will also be exported without achieving any significant fossil fuel use nor any CO2 reduction. Achieving own-consumption of all its wind power is tech-nically impossible in the short term and will remain entirely hypothetical until electricity consumption rises and new technical and demand-side solutions have been developed and implemented. In most cases, these have yet even to be invented, let alone proven and costed.

Notwithstanding its many disadvantages wind power’s one striking advantage is that, like nuclear, its marginal costs of operation are very small once the capital has been paid. However, unlike nuclear, many ten to fifteen year-old turbines are past their useful life. By contrast, most conventional rotating power plants can enjoy a working life of 40 to 60 years, as evidenced by most power plants in Europe today. This puts into question the strategic, economic and environmental benefits of a power plant that may have to be scrapped, replaced and resubsidized every ten to fifteen years.

The Danish Parliament reached a political consensus during 2008 that in 2025 50% of Denmark’s electricity demand must come from renewable resources, mostly wind power. The Ecogrid Study Group has concluded that if the extra wind power is to achieve this aim, drastic re-engineering of the whole energy system will need to take place, including the retirement of much expensive, high quality, existing capacity. Wisely, it has not tried to estimate the costs of doing this. In any case, Sweden and Norway will be unable balance the extra wind capacity planned that is also planned for Germany and Netherlands.

PART 2: Wind Energy’s effect on employment

Denmark has been a first-mover in the wind power industry for over ten years, and its leading wind turbine manufacturers have been able to maintain a very strong global position. This has been a consequence of a concerted policy to increase the share of wind power in Danish electricity generation. The policy has only been made possible through substantial subsidies supporting the wind turbine owners. This indirect subsidy has in turn generated the demand for wind turbines from the manufactures. Exactly how the subsidies have been shared between land, wind turbine owners, labor, capital and shareholders is opaque, but it is fair to assess that no Danish wind industry to speak of would exist if it had to compete on market terms. This paper documents the experiences gained in Denmark with regard to the employment effect of subsidizing the wind industry.

Substantial subsidies have been directed to the Danish wind mill industry over years. From 2001-2005 the yearly subsidy has been 1.7-2.6 billion DKK.

[3 The “value” of European emission allowances since the European emission-trading scheme (ETS) started has varied between € 1 and

€30 per ton of CO2.

4 http://www.energinet.dk/en/menu/R+and+D/EcoGrid/EcoGrid.dk.htm] ADMIN NOTE: The complete URL here no longer comes up as a page; however, the root of the URL is valid, and can be searched here.

September

The Danish Wind industry counts 28,400 employees. This does not, however, constitute the net employment effect of the wind mill subsidy. In the long run, creating additional employment in one sector through subsidies will detract labor from other sectors, resulting in no increase in net employment but only in a shift from the non-subsidized sectors to the subsidized sector. Allowing for the theoretical possibility of wind employment alleviating possible regional pockets of high unemployment, a very optimistic ballpark estimate of net real job creation is 10% of total employment in the sector. In this case the subsidy per job created is 600,000-900,000 DKK per year ($90,000-140,000). This subsidy constitutes around 175-250% of the average pay per worker in the Danish manufacturing industry.

In terms of value added per employee, the energy technology sector over the period 1999-2006 underperformed by as much as 13% compared with the industrial average.

This implies that the effect of the government subsidy has been to shift employment from more productive employment in other sectors to less productive employment in the wind industry. As a consequence, Danish GDP is approximately 1.8 billion DKK ($270 million) lower than it would have been if the wind sector work force was employed elsewhere.

‘Earth Hour’ Hatred of Civilization

Culture, Environment, Government

Mar 282010

Eco Death-Cult Groks PRK

My plundering of global blogposts continues. Below, from the Land of Oz,via PA Pundit, is a fairly self-explanatory disgust-fest over our Eco-Morons’ worship of pre-civilization conditions for the entire planet. They seem to actually be holding North Korea up as a model of eco-propriety, ignoring that it is a dictatorship that has impoverished its people to the point of cannibalism as an alternative to starvation. (Funerals are no longer held during the day, so they can prevent the freshly-deceased from being dug up and consumed by their starving neighbors.) But Socialism is otherwise OK because, you see, it treats everyone the same.

By Andrew Bolt

TonyfromOz prefaces ….. That yearly farce, Earth Hour is this Saturday Night.

Terry McCrann on the farce of Saturday’s turn-off-the-lights Earth Hour:

Earth Hour is the rest of the planet paying homage to North Korea, endorsing its state of grace with Gaia.

The land where the lights are permanently out, as the famous satellite photograph shows of the stunning difference between the northern and southern ends of the Korean peninsula….

Nothing better captures the utter inanity of the cult of global warming and its characterisation of carbon dioxide as an even greater Satan than George W. Bush’s America than Earth Hour. Insufferably smarmy, quite pointless, contradictory, utterly inchoate.

Although I have to concede a certain bizarre honesty in the way the concept projects – a tacit admission that the anti-CO2 crusade actually does seek to literally turn off the lights…. Earth Hour seems to project that looking – literally – like North Korea is not only a good thing but where the aggressive campaign against CO2 will end up.

No, no, no, comes back the response. In the post-carbon future, alternative energy will provide all the light we want.

So if we can, if we supposedly will, look like today’s South Korea in that glorious future, why not celebrate turning on the lights?

Yet when a Liberal Senator’s site suggests just that, see The Age gasp in horror. (TonyfromOz adds ….. Where this says Liberal Senator, be aware that in Australia, ther Liberal Party is the name of the Conservative Party, and they have the same outlook and policies as the Republican Party in the U.S.)

Economist Professor Ross McKitrick, one of the “hockeystick” debunkers:

The whole mentality around Earth Hour demonizes electricity. I cannot do that, instead I celebrate it and all that it has provided for humanity. Earth Hour celebrates ignorance, poverty and backwardness. By repudiating the greatest engine of liberation it is nothing more than an hour devoted to anti-humanism.

There’s no link to his piece, so, with his permission, here it is:

I abhor Earth Hour. Abundant, cheap electricity has been the greatest source of human liberation in the 20th century. Every material social advance in the 20th century depended on the proliferation of inexpensive and reliable electricity. Giving women the freedom to work outside the home depended on the availability of electrical appliances that free up time from domestic chores. Getting children out of menial labour and into schools depended on the same thing, as well as the ability to provide safe indoor lighting for reading. Development and provision of modern health care without electricity is absolutely impossible. The expansion of our food supply, and the promotion of hygiene and nutrition, depended on being able to irrigate fields, cook and refrigerate foods, and have a steady indoor supply of hot water.

Most of the world’s poor suffer brutal environmental conditions in their own homes because of the necessity of cooking over indoor fires that burn twigs and dung. This causes local deforestation and the proliferation of smoke- and parasite-related lung diseases. Anyone who wants to see local conditions improve in the third world should realize the importance of access to cheap electricity from fossil-fuel based power generating stations. That’s how we developed.

The whole mentality around Earth Hour demonizes electricity. I cannot do that, instead I celebrate it and all that it has provided for humanity. Earth Hour celebrates ignorance, poverty and backwardness. By repudiating the greatest engine of liberation it is nothing more than an hour devoted to anti-humanism. It invites people to become sanctimonious do-gooders by turning off trivial appliances for a trivial amount of time, in service of some ill-understood abstraction called “The Earth”, all the while hypocritically retaining the real benefits of electricity. People who want to do without electricity to prove their symbolic solidarity with nature should shut off their fridge, stove, microwave, computer, water heater, lights, TV and all other appliances for a month, not an hour. And pop down to the cardiac unit at the hospital and shut the power off there too.

I don’t want to go back to nature. Haiti just went back to nature. For humans, living in “Nature” meant a short life span marked by violence, disease and ignorance. People who work to end poverty and disease are struggling against nature. I hope they believe in their own cause enough to leave their lights on…

If, after all this, we are going to take the view that the remaining air emissions outweigh all the benefits of electricity, and therefore we ought to be shamed into sitting in darkness for an hour, like naughty children who have been caught doing something very bad, then we are setting up unspoiled nature as an absolute, transcendent ideal that obliterates all other ethical and humane obligations. No thanks. I like visiting nature but I don’t want to live there, and I refuse to accept the idea that civilization is something to be ashamed of.

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog

8 Votes

Spanish “Green Jobs” Failure

Environment, Government, Markets

Mar 282010

In my posting of March 13th, under the title “Obama Wind Power Deceit,” I promised to find the Spanish University study referred to in the Investor’s Business Daily editorial and publish it at a future date. Well, here it is. The editorial will be removed from this site on April 13th, but the link to will remain. Meanwhile, I’ve excerpted the Executive Summary from the report, here, detailing the 23-point conclusion from the 53 page report.

Despite its length, I’d recommend you peruse the report for the many charts and more detailed conclusions, especially the background history of the Renewables Movement pursued by the European Union.

Please note, also, the use of the word “bubble” here. The academics who authored the study are explicitly trying to warn us against a “Renewables Bubble.”

Enjoy.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: LESSONS FROM THE SPANISH RENEWABLES BUBBLE

Europe’s current policy and strategy for supporting the so-called “green jobs” or renewable energy dates back to 1997, and has become one of the principal justifications for U.S. “green jobs” proposals. Yet an examination of Europe’s experience reveals these policies to be terribly economically counter productive.This study is important for several reasons. First is that the Spanish experience is considered a leading example to be followed by many policy advocates and politicians.

This study marks the very first time a critical analysis of the actual performance and impact has been made. Most important, it demonstrates that the Spanish/EU-style“green jobs” agenda now being promoted in the U.S. in fact destroys jobs, detailing this in terms of jobs destroyed per job created and the net destruction per installed MW. The study’s results demonstrate how such “green jobs” policy clearly hinders Spain’s way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil. The following are key points from the study:

1. As President Obama correctly remarked, Spain provides a reference for the establishment of government aid to renewable energy. No other country has given such broad support to the construction and production of electricitythrough renewable sources. The arguments for Spain’s and Europe’s “greenjobs” schemes are the same arguments now made in the U.S., principally that massive public support would produce large numbers of green jobs. The question that this paper answers is “at what price?”

2. Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data1, we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’sexperience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence,by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created. 1 The MITRE project was partially funded by DG TREN (Energy & Transport) of the EuropeanCommission under the Altener programme.Study about the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources-2-3.

Therefore, while it is not possible to directly translate Spain’s experience with exactitude to claim that the U.S. would lose at least 6.6 million to 11 millionjobs, as a direct consequence were it to actually create 3 to 5 million “greenjobs” as promised (in addition to the jobs lost due to the opportunity cost of private capital employed in renewable energy), the study clearly reveals the tendency that the U.S. should expect such an outcome.

4. At minimum, therefore, the study’s evaluation of the Spanish model cited as one for the U.S. to replicate in quick pursuit of “green jobs” serves a note of caution, that the reality is far from what has typically been presented, and that such schemes also offer considerable employment consequences and implications for emerging from the economic crisis.

5. Despite its hyper-aggressive (expensive and extensive) “green jobs” policies it appears that Spain likely has created a surprisingly low number of jobs, two thirds of which came in construction, fabrication and installation, one quarter in administrative positions, marketing and projects engineering, and just one out of ten jobs has been created at the more permanent level of actual operation and maintenance of the renewable sources of electricity.

6. This came at great financial cost as well as cost in terms of jobs destroyed elsewhere in the economy.

7. The study calculates that since 2000 Spain spent €571,138 to create each“green job”, including subsidies of more than €1 million per wind industry job.

8. The study calculates that the programs creating those jobs also resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every “green job” created.

9. Principally, the high cost of electricity affects costs of production and employment levels in metallurgy, non-metallic mining and food processing, beverage and tobacco industries.

10. Each “green” megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs on average elsewhere in theeconomy: 8.99 by photovoltaics, 4.27 by wind energy, 5.05 by mini-hydro.

11. These costs do not appear to be unique to Spain’s approach but instead are largely inherent in schemes to promote renewable energy sources.

12. The total over-cost – the amount paid over the cost that would result from buying the electricity generated by the renewable power plants at the marketprice – that has been incurred from 2000 to 2008 (adjusting by 4% and calculating its net present value [NPV] in 2008), amounts to 7,918.54 millionEuros (appx. $10 billion USD)

13. The total subsidy spent and committed (NPV adjusted by 4%) to these three renewable sources amounts to 28,671 million euros ($36 billion USD). Executive Summary: Lessons from the Spanish renewables bubble-3-

14. The price of a comprehensive electricity rate (paid by the end consumer) in Spain would have to be increased 31% to being able to repay the historic debt generated by this rate deficit mainly produced by the subsidies to renewables, according to Spain’s energy regulator.

15. Spanish citizens must therefore cope with either an increase of electricity rates or increased taxes (and public deficit), as will the U.S. if it follows Spain’s model.

16. The high cost of electricity due to the green job policy tends to drive the relatively most electricity-intensive companies and industries away, seeking areas where costs are lower. The example of Acerinox is just such a case.

17. The study offers a caution against a certain form of green energy mandate. Minimum guaranteed prices generate surpluses that are difficult to manage. InSpain’s case, the minimum electricity prices for renewable-generated electricity, far above market prices, wasted a vast amount of capital that could have been otherwise economically allocated in other sectors. Arbitrary, state-established price systems inherent in “green energy” schemes leave the subsidized renewable industry hanging by a very weak thread and, it appears, doomed to dramatic adjustments that will include massive unemployment, loss of capital, dismantlement of productive facilities and perpetuation of inefficient ones.

18. These schemes create serious “bubble” potential, as Spain is now discovering.The most paradigmatic bubble case can be found in the photovoltaic industry. Even with subsidy schemes leaving the mean sale price of electricity generated from solar photovoltaic power 7 times higher than the mean price of the pool, solar failed even to reach 1% of Spain’s total electricity production in 2008.

19. The energy future has been jeopardized by the current state of wind or photovoltaic technology (more expensive and less efficient than conventional energy sources). These policies will leave Spain saddled with and further artificially perpetuating obsolete fixed assets, far less productive than cutting edge technologies, the soaring rates for which soon-to-be obsolete assets the government has committed to maintain at high levels during their lifetime.

20. The regulator should consider whether citizens and companies need expensive and inefficient energy – a factor of production usable in virtually every humanproject- or affordable energy to help overcome the economic crisis instead.

21. The Spanish system also jeopardizes conventional electricity facilities, which are the first to deal with the electricity tariff deficit that the State owes them.

22. Renewable technologies remained the beneficiaries of new credit while others began to struggle, though this was solely due to subsidies, mandates and related programs. As soon as subsequent programmatic changes take effect which became necessary due to “unsustainable” solar growth its credit will also cease.

23. This proves that the only way for the “renewables” sector – which was never feasible by itself on the basis of consumer demand – to be “countercyclical” in crisis periods is also via government subsidies. These schemes create a bubble, Study about the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources-4-which is boosted as soon as investors find in “renewables” one of the few profitable sectors when fleeing other investments. Yet it is axiomatic, as we are seeing now, that when crisis arises, the Government cannot afford this growing subsidy cost either, and finally must penalize the artificial renewable industries which then face collapse.

24. Renewables consume enormous taxpayer resources. In Spain, the average annuity payable to renewables is equivalent to 4.35% of all VAT collected, 3.45% of the household income tax, or 5.6% of the corporate income tax for 2007.

Obama Wind-Power Deceit

Environment, Government, Wind

Mar 132010

No Choice: It's Either High Taxes or High Rates

Bird Cuisinart

Well. It looks like I, like Joe Biden before me, have a penchant for plagiarism. In fact, though, the purpose of this blog is not to showcase my (nonexistent) brilliant writing, but to convey information of broad concern to a readership concerned with maintaining the founding principles of this nation intact, which touches upon a great many subjects.

One of those is the Global Environmental Scam, and this article – written by a competent professional at Investors Business Daily, as opposed to a blogger wanna-be – exposes the continuing cover-up by this administration and its beneficiaries/allies/co-conspirators of any information that does not conform to their pre-existing agenda. In this case, reports out of both Spain and Denmark on the economic failure of their own wind power programs. I’ll find and reprint these reports in later Posts.

Meanwhile, courtesy of IBD, and in accordance with their copywrite policies, I am reprinting their entire editorial on this matter and showing it here for 30 days only. (I tried using their code and advertising, but it wouldn’t work on my site.) I’ve linked to the article, above, so that it can be accessed long after the full article on this site has been removed. Enjoy.

IBD EDITORIAL – REMOVED ON SCHEDULE (Thanks to Investors Business Daily for the loan of their editorial: click on the link two paragraphs up to view the article on their own site).

What this shows is a shameless politicization of what should be a professional bureaucracy. Instead of staying objective, they sought to scupper facts for ideologically motivated junk science. It also shows how influential radical activists and trade lobbyists are in the Obama administration, something the president had promised to hose out during his presidential campaign.

Among the outsiders at Energy’s “in” crowd was the Center for American Progress, a think tank partly funded by billionaire investor George Soros and led by John Podesta, a man who visitor logs show was at the White House 31 times over two months in the fall of 2009, the only period from which records are available. Two of his visits were with officials prominent on green issues.

Whatever that means, it amounts to an authentic scandal in the league of Climate-gate, where leaked e-mails exposed the fraud of global warming data at the University of East Anglia and the effort of academics to cover it up.

“The least revelatory aspect of this was the hollowness of the Obama administration’s claims to having driven lobbyists from the executive branch. Providing an inside role for politically favored industries in developing official administration statements falls even further from the rhetoric,” said CEI’s Horner, in an e-mail to IBD.

“Worse, with direct communications with ideological activists like CAP and UCS undoubtedly the anticipated and regular subject of FOIA requests, we also see how the Obama administration employed an industry lobby to channel the influence of such groups into the administration’s inner workings to circumvent the expected pathway for scrutiny,” said Horner, who also noted that Energy officials have since misled Congress.

With that the modus operandi of Energy now, questions are raised as to how objective any of its reports are. Can we trust what it says? Or shall the department be written off as out-of-touch politicians are?

Senate Climategate Report

Environment, Government

Mar 092010

For those of you who may have missed this official report on the collapse of the science behind the British source – the University of East Anglia – that our EPA relies on for its climate data, here is Senator Inhofe’s announcement as the Ranking Member on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (the report is 84 pp.). Enjoy.

Link to EPW Minority Report on CRU Controversy

Link to a Sampling of CRU E-Mails

Link: IPCC Gets the Science Wrong

Link: Endangerment Finding Based on Flawed Science

Greenhouse Gas Theory Explained

CO2, Environment

Mar 022010

It's All About Feedbacks

We Exhale CO2; Plants Inhale It

This is too good to not let stand on its own.

The (incomplete, due to 350 word reply limitation on the site) comment was in response to a Feb. 25th article at The American Thinker blog (americanthinker.com) by Alan Siddons titled “The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Gas Theory.” The comment thread is worth spending a little time with, as well. Read the whole thing here.

Most do not understand the man made global warming theory.

The Sun’s rays warm the earth, this heat is then released to the atmosphere, greenhouse gases do not (trap this heat), they just slow the rate in which the heat is dissipated back into space.

CO2 does absorb some heat, but CO2 is a trace gas, it is less than 4/10,000ths of the atmosphere. 95% of greenhouse gases are water vapor, they are a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.

CO2s ability to absorb heat is logarithmic, meaning the more CO2 there is, the less heat it can absorb. The first 20ppm of CO2 absorbs more heat than the next 500ppm and so forth.

If you double or triple CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 by itself, can not raise temperatures more than about 1 deg C, no matter how much there is. There is consensus on this.

The AGW theory says that rising CO2 from man, causes more warming of the atmosphere (which it does), and this will cause positive feedbacks, more humidity in the air, fewer clouds, or more high level cirrus clouds (cirrus clouds are the type of cloud that slow release of heat from the atmosphere). these positive feedbacks will cause higher temperatures which eventually leads to dangerous global warming from a vicious cycle. So CO2 is just the trigger. It is humidity that is said to cause the dangerous warming.

Observation shows that these positive feedbacks do not exist. When temperatures warm, there is more humidity, but low level clouds form, it rains, and temperatures cool. Thus, clouds are negative feedbacks, not positive.

The global warming theory says that the atmosphere is unstable, but it is actually the opposite.

So it is all about the feedbacks, this is the missing part of the debate, that people on both sides do not really understand.

There were three ice ages with more CO2 than today.

CO2 doesnt do much to warm the atmosphere, look at the difference between deserts and the tropics. CO2 is about the same at both locations, but the desert is colder at night and warmer in the day than … (350 word limit)

via American Thinker – Comments.

If No Global Warming, No Energy Crisis

Environment, Government

Feb 182010

Flawed Models Threaten World Economy

For the Warmists, i.e., the True Believers, there has been approximately a three-month flap – a tempest in a teaparty, no doubt – over the validity of climate-change science and the integrity of its creators. The British university the IPCC counts on for its AGW claims was caught manipulating the data and the professional journals that report it. In America, similar problems have cropped up at NASA and NOAA.

Here’s the question, the point of this post, really: Do you need to know anything at all about climatology to understand that, if the key players in the data gathering and forecasting that underpins the theory say the data is no good, the case for AGW collapses? With that collapse goes most of the rationale for eliminating fossil fuels. Energy independence, global warming and scarcity have been the three arguments for change. Energy independence and scarcity (peak oil) are matters of political will – at any time in the last thirty years. That leaves AGW, which is fading in the stretch.

Of course, regardless of what might surface as proof that the science simply is not there and never has been, many True Believers will go to their graves believing we’ve lost our last good chance to save Mother Earth from the foul polluters. What they will be ignoring in their immediate environment, however, will be the reality of most people continuing to buy and drive SUV’s for a very long time as they enjoy the benefit of the cheap oil that becomes possible to drill as soon as the AGW crisis has vanished.

It’s a fragile intellectual structure that quickly devolves into a quasi-Marxist consequence that blames everyone for the destruction of the planet. A lot of guilt; a little faux science and…voila! American mindless materialism elicits the greedy consumption of the majority of the planet’s resources which then get converted into gases and chemicals that the planet can’t handle and – if the evolved, sensitive beings of the planet don’t step in – Armaggedon is nigh. And we don’t want any technological solution to this problem, by the way; that would be more of the same. Whew!

People across the political spectrum generally acknowledge that this has alway been a political issue. The problem is that the progressives assume it’s only 20% political (80% science), while the exact opposite is true. (Personally, I’ve long thought there’s only enough science to make a plausible argument to populations who are reluctant to admit that they are not only bone ignorant in that regard, but really don’t give a sh*t. They just want the virtue and friendship that comes with saving Gaia.)

Stay tuned – if the data keeps rolling in and corporations and countries keep backpedaling from their environmental commitments, the sustainable movement may lose its sustainability, despite the millions the administration has lavished on grants and enticements to industry to keep this hoax alive.

Which bring us to:

FREQUENTLY UNASKED QUESTIONS

Do we really believe that our exhalations are toxic, and not plant food?
Do we really believe that the sun is irrelevant to climate?
If you need a victim you can rescue people from, what better than the planet?
Is your BS detector broken, damaged or genetically missing?
What is the societal cost of your easily-acquired virtue?