Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Environment’ Category

CNSNews tells us that Rhode Island’s PUC bypassed an opportunity to purchase power from a proposed wind farm because it would be too expensive, 3x the cost of other energy sources.  This is part of the core problem with “green” technology, it’s too inefficient and too expensive.  With the Democrat’s socialist agenda on the rise, adapting such technologies now without giving them time to develop (read: cap-and-trade) would only seek to further the burden American taxpayers in a time when our economy is weakened and our Socialist overlords have just burdened us with European-style health care.

Too Expensive: Wind Power Contract Rejected by R.I. Public Utilities Commission

Wednesday, March 31, 2010
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor

(CNSNews.com) – The R.I. Public Utilities Commission on Tuesday rejected a contract that would have allowed Rhode Island’s largest electric utility to buy power from a wind farm that’s planned for the waters off the R.I. coast. It would have been the first project of its kind in the United States, the Providence Journal reported.

The three-member commission voted unanimously against the power-purchase agreement, saying the price of power agreed to by the two sides was too high and that the overall deal was not “commercially reasonable.”

According to the Providence Journal, “The crux of the proposed agreement was a sale price of 24.4 cents per kilowatt hour, nearly three times the price National Grid pays for energy from fossil-fuel fired power plants and nuclear facilities. Over the 20-year contract, the price would have escalated by 3.5 percent annually, so, by the final year, it would have been 48.6 cents per kilowatt hour. Combined with a 2.75-percent markup on clean energy that National Grid was allowed by Rhode Island law, it would have meant hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs to the state’s 480,000 ratepayers over two decades.”

Read report from Providence Journal and see Newspaper Roundup

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Fox News brings us a story where “NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) — the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails — and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center.”

NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits

By Blake Snow

– FOXNews.com

NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can’t tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA’s temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.

E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) — the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails — and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center.

The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA’s data “was more accurate” than other climate-change data sets, NASA’s Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said “the National Climatic Data Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,” admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.

“My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC’s data for the U.S. means and [East Anglia] data for the global means,” Ruedy told the reporter.

“NASA’s temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA,” wrote Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Horner is skeptical of NCDC’s data as well, stating plainly: “Three out of the four temperature data sets stink.”

Global warming critics call this a crucial blow to advocates’ arguments that minor flaws in the “Climate-gate” data are unimportant, since all the major data sets arrive at the same conclusion — that the Earth is getting warmer. But there’s a good reason for that, the skeptics say: They all use the same data.

“There is far too much overlap among the surface temperature data sets to assert with a straight face that they independently verify each other’s results,” says James M. Taylor, senior fellow of environment policy at The Heartland Institute.

“The different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise,” said Dr. James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in the same 2007 e-mail thread. Earlier this month, in an updated analysis of the surface temperature data, GISS restated that the separate analyses by the different agencies “are not independent, as they must use much of the same input observations.”

Neither NASA nor NOAA responded to requests for comment. But Dr. Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at Weather Underground, still believes the validity of data from NASA, NOAA and East Anglia would be in jeopardy only if the comparative analysis didn’t match. “I see no reason to question the integrity of the raw data,” he says. “Since the three organizations are all using mostly the same raw data, collected by the official weather agency of each individual country, the only issue here is whether the corrections done to the raw data were done correctly by CRU.”

Corrections are needed, Masters says, “since there are only a few thousand surface temperature recording sites with records going back 100+ years.” As such, climate agencies estimate temperatures in various ways for areas where there aren’t any thermometers, to account for the overall incomplete global picture.

“It would be nice if we had more global stations to enable the groups to do independent estimates using completely different raw data, but we don’t have that luxury,” Masters adds. “All three groups came up with very similar global temperature trends using mostly the same raw data but independent corrections. This should give us confidence that the three groups are probably doing reasonable corrections, given that the three final data sets match pretty well.”

But NASA is somewhat less confident, having quietly decided to tweak its corrections to the climate data earlier this month.

In an updated analysis of the surface temperature data released on March 19, NASA adjusted the raw temperature station data to account for inaccurate readings caused by heat-absorbing paved surfaces and buildings in a slightly different way. NASA determines which stations are urban with nighttime satellite photos, looking for stations near light sources as seen from space.

Of course, this doesn’t solve problems with NASA’s data, as the newest paper admits: “Much higher resolution would be needed to check for local problems with the placement of thermometers relative to possible building obstructions,” a problem repeatedly underscored by meteorologist Anthony Watts on his SurfaceStations.org Web site. Last month, Watts told FoxNews.com that “90 percent of them don’t meet [the government’s] old, simple rule called the ‘100-foot rule’ for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence. Ninety percent of them failed that, and we’ve got documentation.”

Still, “confidence” is not the same as scientific law, something the public obviously recognizes. According to a December survey, only 25 percent of Americans believed there was agreement within the scientific community on climate change. And unless things fundamentally change, it could remain that way, said Taylor.

“Until surface temperature data sets are truly independent of one another and are entrusted to scientists whose objectivity is beyond question, the satellite temperature record alone will not have any credibility,” he said.

Read Full Post »

Fox Business’ John Stossel brings us a story about research done comparing “Greens” (those who commit to “go green” for the environment) to ordinary shoppers.  The result?  “Greens” steal and cheat more than us regular folk.

March 18, 2010 10:06 AM EDT by John Stossel

Green Crooks

GorePeople who commit their lives to going green are just better people. They’re more moral, more honest. At least, they keep telling us that, and apparently many students believe it, say University of Toronto psychologists:

They initially quizzed the students on their impressions of people who buy eco-friendly products, and for the most part, they considered such consumers to be more “more cooperative, altruistic and ethical” than ordinary consumers…

Then the researchers took it an extra step: They ran a test to see who would be more likely to cheat and steal: Greens? Or conventional shoppers?

They divided the greens and conventional shoppers, and then gave the students a test that tempted them to steal money. The researchers found:

The green consumers were more likely to cheat than the conventional purchasers, and they stole more money when asked to withdraw their winnings from envelopes on their desks.

This concept of moral license has been demonstrated before, writes Wray Herbert in his blog for the Association for Psychological Science.

(W)hen they have reason to feel a little superior, that positive self image triggers a sense of moral license. That is, the righteous feel they have some latitude to stray a bit in order to compensate. It’s like working in a soup kitchen gives you the right to cheat on your taxes later in the week.

Maybe that’s why sanctimonious stewards of the environment like Al Gore are comfortable lecturing the rest of us while living large in mega-mansions.

Read Full Post »

Fox News bring us news that a group has gone around checking on the temperature sensors used to compile “global warming” data.  The group found that 90% of the monitoring stations violate the Government’s 100-foot rule of being within’ anything that could influence the results.

U.S. Climate Data Compromised by Sensors’ Proximity to Heat Sources, Critics Say

By Joseph Abrams

– FOXNews.com

A critical cog in the machinery that drives the theory of global warming is a small white box not too far from where you live. Inside the box sits a thermometer that tracks the local temperature, which in turn becomes part of a data trail for the monitoring of climate change on Earth.

But there’s a problem: Nearly every single weather station the U.S. government uses to measure the country’s surface temperature may be compromised. Sensors that are supposed to be in empty clearings are instead exposed to crackling electronics and other unlikely sources of heat, from exhaust pipes and trash-burning barrels to chimneys and human graves.

The National Climate Data Center (NCDC) uses this massive network of sensors to determine daily highs and lows at the 1,219 weather stations in its Historical Climatology Network (HCN). The network has existed since 1892, but only in the last decade has it come under intense scrutiny to determine whether the figures it measures can be trusted.

For the past three years, a group of zealous laymen has visited and photographed nearly every one of the weather stations to determine whether they have been placed properly. And what they found is a stunning disregard for the government’s own rules: 90 percent of the sensors are too close to potential sources of heat to pass muster, including some very odd sources indeed:

• A sensor in Redding, Calif., is housed in a box that also contains a halogen light bulb, which could emit warmth directly onto the gauge.

• A sensor in Hanksville, Utah, sits directly atop a gravestone, which is not only macabre but also soaks up the sun’s heat and radiates it back to the thermometer at night.

• A sensor in Marysville, Calif., sits in a parking lot at a fire station right next to an air conditioner exhaust, a cell phone tower and a barbecue grill.

• A sensor in Tahoe City, Calif., sits near a paved tennis court and is right next to a “burn barrel” that incinerates garbage.

• A sensor in Hopkinsville, Ky., is sheltered from the wind by an adjoining house and sits above an asphalt driveway.

• Dozens of sensors are located at airports and sewage treatment plants, which produce “heat islands” from their sprawling seas of asphalt and heavy emissions.

“So far we’ve surveyed 1,062 of them,” said Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who began the tracking effort in 2007. “We found that 90 percent of them don’t meet [the government’s] old, simple rule called the ‘100-foot rule‘ for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence. Ninety percent of them failed that, and we’ve got documentation.”

Watts, who has posted pictures of the sensors on his Web site, SurfaceStations.org, says he believes that the location of the sensors renders their recorded temperatures inaccurate, which in turn brings some of the data behind global warming theory into question.

“It’s asinine to think that this wouldn’t have some kind of an effect,” Watts told FoxNews.com.

But climate scientists who analyze the data say that they are able to account and adjust for the faulty locations by comparing warming trends they spot at bad sites to trends they see at good ones.

“If you use only the sites that currently have good siting versus those that have not-so-good siting, when you look at the adjusted data basically you get the same trend,” said Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch at NCDC.

Lawrimore admitted that Watts’ volunteers had discovered real problems with sensor siting, but he said that even when those sites’ heat readings were adjusted down, they still showed a steady overall rise in temperatures.

“The ultimate conclusion, the bottom line is that there really isn’t evidence that the trends have a bias based on the current siting,” he said.

And surface station data is only a small subset of information confirming the warming of the climate, Lawrimore said.

Changes in air temperature, water temperature, glacier melt, plant flowering, tree growth and species migration, among many others, show the same worldwide trend — a 0.7 degree Celsius jump (1.2 degrees Fahrenheit) in the past century.

“There’s a certain amount of uncertainty in the calculation of trends, but not to the extent that we don’t know the climate is warming,” he said.

Watts readily agrees that temperatures are on the rise worldwide, but he believes the magnitude of the increase is in question, and he says his research puts the 1.2-degree global figure in doubt.

But a team of three climatologists has completed a study of Watts’ data on HCN siting and found the warming trend to be confirmed.

In fact, the three NCDC scientists, Matthew Menne, Claude Williams and Michael Palecki, say they found that instrument updates in the 1980s have created a cooling bias, and that adjusted and cleaned up data from even the bad sites is “extremely well aligned” with measurements from instruments that meet the “highest standards for climate monitoring.”

“We find no evidence that the [contiguous U.S.] temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting,” reads the study, which is set to be published in a forthcoming volume of the “Journal of Geophysics Research — Atmospheres.”

“It’s all objective analysis based on statistics,” said Matthew Menne, the lead author of the study.

But Menne’s study was conducted using information on only 43 percent of the weather stations. Watts, who has now compiled information on 80 percent of the stations and cleaned up his old information, contends that a more complete data set would furnish different results, and he plans to conduct a study of his own under the aegis of Roger Pielke Sr., a research scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

A better test of the network’s data is on the horizon. In the past eight years, the NOAA has established a hi-tech system that sends information via satellite and abides by all of its own rules for siting. Each sensor is ideally placed in open areas far from other structures, a fact that pleases both government scientists and longstanding critics like Watts.

“I’m convinced that the new system, the Climate Reference Network, will provide a reasonably accurate set of readings,” Watts said.

But data has only begun to be collected from CRN, a regional network of just 114 climate sensors that went fully online in 2008. It will take at least a decade, and as many as 30 years, until the information it collects becomes statistically significant.

In the meantime, and for many years past, the challenged data from NCDC has been providing information for a number of top climate research centers, including the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the Hadley Climate Research Unit, headed until recently by Phil Jones, who resigned in the wake of the climate-gate scandal.

With mounting pressure on climate research facilities, scientists at the NCDC hope that their data won’t be discounted because of the troubling images Watts has compiled.

“These photos show a current snapshot of these stations,” said Menne. “We wouldn’t want to dismiss 100 years of climate records based on a photograph from the year 2009.”

Read Full Post »

WorldNetDaily has an interesting report on how certain leaders of the “green” movement publicly oppose “clean coal” while supporting companies that produce it.  The story doesn’t stop there.  The companies that produce “clean coal” also support groups that adamantly oppose, and even deny the existence of, “clean coal”.  Read on for yet another example of environmentalist ideas in the wild.

‘Green’ leaders contradict selves on ‘clean coal’

Endorse billion-dollar act but support group claiming concept doesn’t exist


Posted: February 16, 2010
12:17 am Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Big Bend Coal Power Station in Apollo Beach, Fla.

Board members and endorsers of the Apollo Alliance, which successfully promoted “clean coal” funding as part of President Obama’s $787 billion “stimulus” bill, also have endorsed a group led by Al Gore that opposes the White House’s “clean coal” efforts, going so far as to claim “clean coal” doesn’t exist, WND has learned.

The Apollo Alliance board of directors includes a slew of extremists. The group has boasted in its own literature of its role in helping to craft portions of the multi-billion-dollar American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that Obama signed into law last year.

The Alliance helped draft “clean energy and green-collar jobs provisions” of the bill, for which $3.4 billion was earmarked to “work toward making coal part of the solution and reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from industrial facilities and fossil fuel power plants.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lauded the Alliance for helping craft the “stimulus” bill.

“The Apollo Alliance has been an important factor in helping us develop and execute a strategy that makes great progress on these goals and in motivating the public to support them,” Reid said in a statement.

The Alliance has long pushed “clean coal.” In 2007 Senate testimony Apollo Alliance President Jerome Ringo talked about a blueprint his group drew up, claiming “hundreds of thousands of additional jobs will be created in the clean energy technology sector, including renewables, clean coal and bio-fuels.”

A slew of groups that support the Apollo Alliance as well as individuals on Apollo’s board endorsed what was known as the “New Apollo Program and the Apollo Economic Recovery Act,” a mock recovery act on which sections of Obama’s “stimulus” bill was partly based. That act also called for funding for “clean coal.”However, WND has leaned many of those same Apollo endorsers and board members also are members of Gore’s lobby group that opposes “clean coal” initiatives.

In 2008, Gore launched the Reality Coalition, a national grassroots and advertising effort with a simple message: In reality, there is no such thing as clean coal. Coal, Reality Coalition argues, cannot be considered clean until its carbon dioxide emissions are captured and stored. Gore’s group has backed a multi-million dollar ad campaign, running in print, broadcast and online media, opposing Obama’s “clean coal” initiatives.

At the launch of Reality Coalition, Gore wrote a New York Times op-ed arguing that until coal is truly clean, there should be no new coal-fired power plants built in America.

Gore’s group is backed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the United Steelworkers Union and the Sierra Club. Leaders of all three groups also are board members of Apollo Alliance, which promotes “clean coal.”

Larry Schweiger, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, previously stated, “We need to clean up coal, not spend billions on a scheme to market coal as clean.”

However, the National Wildlife Federation is an Apollo Alliance endorser.

Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, previously declared of Gore’s group that “the coal industry is running a cynical and dishonest campaign to mislead the American people, while they stand in the way of real solutions. The ‘Reality’ Coalition is aimed at holding them accountable for their outlandish claims.”

However, the League is an Apollo Alliance endorser.

Other Apollo endorsers who also support Gore’s anti-“clean coal” include the Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club. Sierra’s executive director, Carl Pope, is an Apollo board member as well.

The Apollo Alliance claims it was founded in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks “to catalyze a clean energy revolution in America.”

Discover the Networks notes that in July, Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appointed Apollo Alliance Chairman Angelides to serve as chairman of the newly created Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

Among its board members is a grouping of radicals, including:

  • Van Jones, President Obama’s controversial former “green jobs czar,” who resigned in September after it was exposed he founded a communist revolutionary organization and signed a statement that accused the Bush administration of possible involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Jones also called for “resistance” against the U.S.Green For All, a group co-founded by Jones, is a formal backer of Brown’s IMPACT Act.Jones himself decried the Apollo Alliance mission as “sort of a grand unified field theory for progressive left causes.”
  • Joel Rogers, a founder of the socialist New Party. WND reported on evidence indicating Obama was a New Party member. In an interview with WND, New Party co-founder and Marxist activist Carl Davidson recounted Obama’s participation with the New Party.
  • Jeff Jones, a founder of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist group who spent time on the run from law enforcement agencies while his group carried out a series of bombings of U.S. government buildings.Jones joined the Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS, from which the Weathermen splintered in the fall of 1965. Two years later, he became the SDS New York City regional director, a position in which he participated in nearly all of the group’s major protests until 1969, including the 1968 Columbia University protests and the violent riots that same year at the Democratic National Convention.In 1969, Jones founded the Weathermen with terrorists William Ayers and Mark Rudd when the three signed an infamous statement calling for a revolution against the American government inside and outside the country to fight and defeat what the group called U.S. imperialism. President Obama came under fire for his longtime, extensive association with Ayers.

    Jones was a main leader and orchestrator of what became known as the Days of Rage, a series of violent riots in Chicago organized by the Weathermen. The culmination of the riots came when he gave a signal for rowdy protestors to target a hotel that was the home of a local judge presiding over a trial of anti-war activists.

    Jones went underground after he failed to appear for a March 1970 court date to face charges of “crossing state lines to foment a riot and conspiring to do so.” He moved to San Francisco with Ayers’ wife, Bernardine Dohrn. That year, at least one bombing claimed by the Weathermen went off in Jones’ locale at the Presidio Army base.

    Jones’ Weathermen took credit for multiple bombings of U.S. government buildings, including attacks against the U.S. Capitol March 1, 1971; the Pentagon May 19, 1972, and a 1975 bombing of the State Department building.

With research by Brenda J. Elliott

Read Full Post »

A quote from Norman Mattoon Thomas, six-time Presidential candidate of the Socialist Party of America:

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but, under the name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened.”

He went on to say, “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”

Related Posts: An Experiment On Socialism

Read Full Post »

Climate Depot has a response from the UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton to the Democrats who have refused to allow him to testify against former Vice-President Al Gore at a hearing examining the House’s “global warming” bill.

Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing

Thursday, April 23, 2009 By Marc Morano

‘House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated’

Climate Depot Exclusive


Washington DC — UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.


“The House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”


According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had “chickened out” and there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment’s fourth day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.


According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee staff earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed ‘celebrity’ as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing examining the House global warming bill. The ‘celebrity’ witness turned out to be Gore. Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats ‘celebrity’ with an unnamed ‘celebrity’ of their own. But Monckton claims that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore.


“The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman’s (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore’s sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear,” Monckton said from the airport Thursday evening.


“Waxman knows there has been no ‘global warming’ for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years’ global cooling. Waxman knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore’s mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, ‘the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,’” Monckton explained. Monckton has previously testified before the House Committee in March. (See: Monckton: Have the courage to do nothing…US Congress told climate change is not real ) Monckton has also publicly challenged Gore to a debate. (See: Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global Warming By Lord Monckton – March 19, 2007 )


A call to the Democratic office of the House Energy and Commerce Committee seeking comment was not immediately returned Thursday night.


Related Links:

Monkton’s Report: 35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie

Monckton: Have the courage to do nothing…US Congress told climate change is not real

Monckton’s Letter to Represenatives Ed Markey & Joe Barton – March 30, 2009

Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global Warming By Lord Monckton – March 19, 2007


Contact: Morano@ClimateDepot.com

Related Posts: EPA Rules ‘Greenhouse Gases’ A Health Hazard
More On CO2 And ‘Global Warming’
‘Cap-And-Trade’ Bill Introduced, Hearings Begin April 20

‘Earth Hour’ Increases CO2

‘Global Warming’ Update

On “Green Energy” And Global Warming

Japanese Scientists On ‘Global Warming’ Research: Propaganda, Immature, And Like Ancient Astrology

Energy Secretary Makes Environmental Predictions, Joins Crowd Of False Prophets

Obama Criticized for Raising Heat, Literally

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »