Powered by TypePad

« Children With Pre-Existing Conditions - Problem Solved!?! | Main | Declare Victory And Move On »

March 29, 2010



In an interview given to The Morning Call, Dr. Mann was able to alienate both sides of the debate with a single sentence:

“I would call them contrarians or, frankly in some cases, climate change deniers,” he said. “I’m a skeptic. When I see a scientific claim being made, I want to see it subject to scrutiny and validation.”

Climatician, heal thyself. Start with a mirror.


On a related note. Drudge links to a report that the senate is about to pick up energy and climate legislation again. I don't think I have the energy.


Nordhaus and Shellenberger, smart enough to spot which way the wind is blowing before a lot of the others, say it's time to separate the desire to ditch fossil fuels from the notion of AGW.

The next question is if not for AGW, why do this?


Somewhere a few years back I read a striking statistic which compared the AGW opinions of meteorologists who work for Ted Turner (i.e. The Weather Channel) and all other meteorologists. Teddy's guys and gals, hugely in favor. Everybody else, hugely skeptical.


Good to see you back Clarice.

From your article: "In recent years, bipartisan agreement has grown on the need to decarbonize our energy supply through the expansion of renewables, nuclear power, and natural gas, as well as increased funding of research and development of new energy technologies."

I'm going to let that roll around in my head for a while.


All Going Wind, blowing?

Energy = CIA = nuclear power = plame =
Climate= Intelligence summit(spies studying in Arctic)= Geo-spacial Intelligence agency creation and funding(climate national security)=subs mining = Hillary hating Canadians(Af/Pak,nets, rocks) and liking Russians(financial like China)

Bill in AZ

"The Times reports on some sand in the liberal media machine"

I don't think it's sand - I think it's snow. More snow predicted for central AZ this week, down to 3500-4000 ft. The Al Gore glacier (my naming) on 8000 ft Mazatzal Peak does not appear to have receded much yet this spring, with more to come. Normally, us folks here in AZ relish any rain or snow we can get - but for the first time in many years I am looking forward to an 80, or even 70 degree day.


Thanks Rich--obviously Nancy Pelosi who says natural gas is a non carbon renewable energy resource is their science adviser.


Some how, bio-fuels are also a "non-carbon" carbon based energy source too.

Jim Ryan

The next question is if not for AGW, why do this?

If the Dems can't pull Cap and Trade off by appealing to AGW, they'll try to do it by appealing to national security, independence from Middle Eastern oil.


Television weather forecasters do not need AGW to get paid.


Good call Neo.


Never let a crisis go to waste. Cheap gas is closing in on 3 dollars where I am visiting. They do have the right idea though, but it invariably spins off to the same green mantra that got us to this point. The authors seem to forget that without the climate change industry (with all the doom predictions) there wouldn't be a green energy industry.

Jim Ryan

AIDE: Mr. President, House Minority Leader Frank is here to see you.


AIDE: Barney Frank. House Minority Leader. He says he made an appointment.

CHRISTIE: I doubt that. Not interested, tell him to beat it.

AIDE: Mr. President?

CHRISTIE: For the love of Pete, he's got 11 Democratic members! CPUSA has eight members for chrissakes. I don't have time to see "House Minority Leader Barney Frank".

AIDE: It's a personal call, Mr. President. He's having trouble getting personal medical care in his home state. He's desperate. Some kind of "condition." Says he's jealous of the care Americans get in the other 49 states. He wants to see if you could issue an executive order to stop RomneyCare. He-


[A VOICE OUTSIDE ROOM]: Pwease, Mr. Pwesident! (ouch!) Pwease!


bio-fuels are also a "non-carbon" carbon based energy source

That's right. There's a certain amount of carbon that cycles among the atmosphere, plants, animals, and dirt, and getting some fraction of that carbon into particular plants or algae won't change the size of the carbon pool that can become atmospheric CO2. Coal, petroleum, and natural gas have carbon that haven't been part of that cycle for a long time, so burning those can change atmospheric CO2 levels in a way biofuels can't.


And now it's "Global Warming" that caused the Biblical Plagues (no, I'm not making it up!)

"Biblical plagues really happened say scientists"
"The Biblical plagues that devastated Ancient Egypt in the Old Testament were the result of global warming and a volcanic eruption, scientists have claimed."



Volcanic eruptions tend to cause global cooling unless one is very close to the volcano. But it's interesting they can only theorize about the causes of weather that's already happened, but are sure of weather yet to come.

security camera systems

Global warming is the main topic of discussion. It is the reason of unbalancing in nature...


"If the Dems can't pull Cap and Trade off by appealing to AGW, they'll try to do it by appealing to national security, independence from Middle Eastern oil."

And don't forget the Endangered Species ploy. That's the BBC's bread and butter now that ClimateGate imploded. Whatever it takes to lock up energy, rob us blind, and create massive empowered Bureaucratic control structures is the end game. Whether it's Polar Bears or Beluga's or naked vole rats, any day you like you can hit on the BBC's Science page and see the same push for massive Government control, only now its veiled in Endangered Species rhetoric versus AGW rhetoric.

The Tranzis wanted this so badly.  The Beast is still alive.

The Democrats are completely out to sea on the subject. They'll claim domestic security when the obvious answer to that is 'Drill, drill, drill'. They'll claim 'jobs' and when European research demonstrates green energy is job-killing they invoke an industry lobby group to work on the pushback. Wind and solar energy are pie in the sky as is biofuels, which are also a sad joke on the environment as well uneconomic without mandates and subsidies.

They really have no where to go, and as the world chills they are going to be more and more exposed.

What an amazing fraud it's all been.

Sometime last year the Weather Channel jettisoned Heidi Cullen, a rabid AGWer, who several years earlier had suggested that meteorologist who didn't publicly support AGW should have their certificates revoked. That went over big, but was seriously suggested.

Old Lurker

"decarbonize our energy supply through the expansion of renewables, nuclear power, and natural gas"

That was a famous statement by Pelosi last year, Rich. Stunning how stupid are some of our leaders. That they are successful nonetheless, well...

But I think she only accidentally had that bit.  I'm reasonably satisfied that she didn't know what she was talking about.

Yes, that was pretty stupid, OL, and right in line with the effort to demonize coal. However, and I'm not sure of the chemistry of it, I think that per unit of heat or electricity produced, natural gas releases less CO2 than oil or coal. So she had a bit of a point.


Television weather forecasters do not need AGW to get paid.

Posted by: ROA | March 30, 2010 at 12:05 AM

All that needs to be said. Follow the money.

Old Lurker

Oh there are lots of reasons to like Natural Gas (which is why I own some wells), it's just remarkable that they do not understand that it's carbon. But, no bother, they can run my health care.


Here in myopically provincial NYC, I thoroughly enjoyed having a recent conversation with my building's new porter/one-of-five-million NYC anal actor. He is convince absolute that Global Warming is really happening.

I ask if he was enlightened to recent events regarding the disclosure that scientists rigged the data-he had no absolutely idea.

That aside; I pity Scientists and the Scientific community, their industry in the junk yard of stupidity all because of Hollywood's brain-dead agit-propaganda crap.

Pity the poor Scientist, when when ruled by laws of the sewer your stench is a nasty stink.


The weather channel really sucks since it was borgified by NBC/GE.

Jack is Back!

"...brings April showers..." but also this!

Kevin B


The difference between Coal and Natural Gas is the amount of hydrogen. All these fuels are hydro-carbons, but Coal has very little hydrogen and is almost pure carbon while oil varies from heavy crudes with lots of carbon, (and other elements), to the lighter fuels where the amount of H to C is greater. Natural gas is more hydrogen than carbon and is thus much lighter. Methane, for instance, is CH4, four hydrogen atoms for every carbon atom. Propane is C3H8. When burnt in oxygen, Coal produces mostly CO2 whereas gas produces a mix of mostly H2O and CO2.

Coal is mostly formed from large carbon structures such as trees, whereas oil and gas fields are formed from a mixture of vegetation and animal life, usually buried under oceans. When pumping these fields you get a mixture of oil and gas which then get separated and sold.

Whoops, turning into a bit of a lecture there, but it's stuff I find interesting.

It surprises me how well I can follow the arguments even though deficient in science.

Excellent, Kevin B. So per unit of energy or electricity generated, does natural gas produce less CO2 than coal? I get that there are longer carbon chains in the heavier fossils, like oil and coal, but that simply means a few more carbon-carbon bonds are broken and slightly fewer carbon-hydrogen bonds.

So I'm not sure on the overall balance. How much energy in a carbon-carbon bond? My chemistry is far away, and a battle long ago.

My organic teacher would be turning over in his grave if he were in it yet.

The ratio of hydrogen to carbon in hydrocarbons, as you lengthen the chain, moves from 4:1 to approaching a limit of 2:1. If the hydrocarbon bond has a lot more energy than the carbon-carbon bond, then natural gas will produce more heat or electricity than coal, per amount of CO2 released.

Danube of Thought

Minus 13 today.

Old Lurker

Kevin, thanks for that.

How can people get the reference if the quote is wrong?

er, my chemistry is a 'far off' thing, and a battle long ago.

Kevin B

Kim, it gets a bit complex as it goes deeper, but the current theory is that when the carbohydrates are broken down by geological processes and the oxygen is expunged, the C-C bonds of the more complex carbohydrates are broken and all that is left are the simpler hydrocarbons with the general formula CnH2n+2. (I can't do suffixes in HTML but Wiki on Hydrocarbons and Petroleum, (and Carbohydrates), is useful.

It's ironic that plants take water and carbon dioxide and energy and turn them into carbohydrates and oxygen which animals then catabolyse into CO2, water and energy, unless geology intervenes and locks up the carbohydrates which then turn into hydrocarbons which humans then dig up and turn into energy and carbon dioxide and water again... and some people want to stop us doing it.

Did I say ironic? I think I meant crazy.

Jack is Back!

Regarding NG versus other carbon based fuels, the big advantage is significantly less NoX (Nitrous Oxide). But it is still more efficient in other applications, not as a fuel but as an agent for plastics and other chemical uses. Its efficiency as a fuel using the most advanced Combined Cycle Gar Turbine technology is perhaps 55% maybe a little bit higher depending on altitude and ambient temperatures.

I am in the Chanucey Starr (EPRI's 1st CEO) camp. As a fuel it is wasting too much potential but as a chemical feed stock it is in a league of its own. It may be "sexy" but it is not as efficient as oil (crude, raw and bunker C), coal and especially nuclear.

And every time I see some one refer to it as non-carbon, I also roll my eyes:)

Where the hell did Boone Pickens go to engineering school. He and Nancy need to brush up on basic thermodynamics.

Jack is Back!

::Gar:: = ::Gas::

I think that per unit of heat or electricity produced, natural gas releases less CO2 than oil or coal.
Natural gas also releases less real pollution per btu produced than other carbon-based fuels, too. Which is a concern for people with asthma, respiratory ailments, etc.
And they work.

Yep, cf, that's why we invented scrubbers.

Jack is Back!

It doesn't matter. We are all too stupid to save the planet from AGW.

Really the greenies object to the 'stuff'.  Which is the difference between a high and a low standard of life.

Good point JiB. I've said for years that those hydrocarbon bonds are much too lovingly formed to shatter just for the energy within them. We need them for feedstock for the plastics which will house, clothe, and transport the teeming billions, and to contain all their 'stuff'.

And Gaia, his Godchild, is cooling.  Oh how sharp the fangs of that serpent.

If you read the whole interview, JiB, you'll find Lovelock wondering if we'll have to suspend democracy in order to deal with this crisis. What he's really whining about is that the human race is too stupid to swallow his schtick and have thus failed to deify him and to obey his every thought.

The science is nowhere near settled enough to base society rocking policy changes upon.

Just as in climate regulation, Kevin, there are huge unknowns in the carbon cycle. We need to understand that cycle a lot better than we do before we can place into context the aliquot of carbon that humanity is releasing into the atmosphere and biosphere.

Old Lurker

"you'll find Lovelock wondering if we'll have to suspend democracy in order to deal with this crisis..."

I saw that in that interview, Kim, and in it one cooment he revealed the true objective of the entire enterprise.

What's it all about, Algae?

The origin of carbon is volcanic. Through the action of the sun upon the biosphere this carbon is virtually permanently sequestered underground in the form of carbonates and hydrocarbons. Classicly, the sun is winning this battle with recent geologic history having the earth is a CO2 starved condition. This is the basis for the people who believe more CO2 will be beneficial ultimately to the earth and its denizens. There are even people, me not among them, who think the anthropogenic release of CO2 has already kept us from descending into the next ice age.

One point that is pertinent is that most of the biosphere's recent evolution has been in this relatively CO2 starved environment. Yet the 40% increase in CO2 concentration lately has not had a direct demonstrable effect on animal life. It clearly is enabling increased plant growth, which should be good for the animal kingdom, but any detriment to animals has yet to be shown.

Old Lurker

...in that one comment...


They were beaten back from the Gates of Copenhagen.

Yep, OL, this was a Putsch. They failed to take Vienna, however.


Just like our Muslim enemies, though, our "global warming" enemies are devoutly committed to their religion of AGW climate change.

They remain at the Gates. Thus, we can never become complacent and let down our guard.

They are very patient, and will continue to whittle away at our defenses until they are eliminated.

We are cooling, folks, but for how long, even kim doesn't know.

The trouble is, fdcol63, that it is probably true that CO2 has an effect on climate. This war will not end with a bang, but with a whimper. If the globe cools, it will be the alarmists whimpering. If the globe warms, the skeptics will have a hard time of it. And frankly, I'm not sure what will happen.


I'm sure it ALL has an effect.

The debate is over the degree of the effect, and whether or not the natural effects outweigh Man's contributions to climate change and whether or not Man can appreciably impact those natural effects EVEN IF we radically alter our societies or cripple our economies in the attempt.

Personally, I think the whole thing is a malicious and evil attempt by would-be-despots to create a global crisis necessitating a global solution imposed by a global government:

The Green Agenda


Rick Ballard

The thrust of the article appears to be that people need to rely upon the GIGO algorithms devised by the Bishops of Climate Scientology on the basis of their weightier credentials. I'm sure such reliance will have no more of a negative impact than reliance upon the marvelous algorithms devised by the heavily credentialed Wizards of Wall Street to evaluate risk in MBS or, more recently, the marvelous algorithms used by the Social Security Administration which have consistently assured us that net outflows would not occur prior to 2016.

I'm just so thankful that we have such a marvelous credentialing process in place. Otherwise we would be always at the mercy of cheap hustlers and worthless con men peddling illusory dreck designed to to obtain power and drain every cent from our pockets. We sure are lucky.

So unless the cooling is significant enough to severely damage society, the alarmists will wreak policy changes which will damage society.

Yep, fdcol63. I believe the effect of CO2 is small. The money and power available for anyone who stampedes the public into fearing that effect is always going to be seductive. And there are fools born every minute.

Most days I'm more optimistic.  We are catching on to this scam.

Most likely we'll get both; socially destructive policy changes and socially destructive cooling.

The bad guys almost pulled this off.

See Climateaudit.org at LUN for the organization called 'Globe International'. Scroll just a little. Pretty insidious stuff, there. Gore was involved.

JM Hanes

I wonder how Obama will triangulate this one:

Government set to unveil offshore drilling plan.


Solar cycles, the Earth's eccentricity, axial tilt and precession, as well as other cosmological factors like the approaching Galactic Alignment in 2012, IMHO, all have more impact on global climate than what Man can do.

Milankovitch Cycles. LOL

The interesting thing to me is that these Galatic Alignments supposedly occur every 26,000 years, which is roughly the same period as the precessional cycle.

Half of that period is 13,000 years, which seems to also coincide with roughly 11,500 BC, which seems to be the same time period when the Earth last experienced massive climate change, the advancement of some human technology, and the emergence of some ancient civilizations, according to several sources.

Perhaps we're just heading into a "normal" cyclical process which we have no control over, other than to try to prepare ourselves as best we can?

Thomas Collins

Sorry for the OT, but modern politically correct humanoids really are beyond parody. See LUN.


Perhaps the Mayan 2012 "prophecy" isn't a prophecy at all, but really a historical record that has somehow been passed down to us?

Who knows.

ask a doctor

It's interesting to see how Obama will react to this topic..

Danube of Thought

I think it's "know" which way the wind blows...


here in SoCal, we have the highest density of bimbo/gay weather staff in the nation. I stopped watching most of the local news years ago. My guess, though, is that they are at the head of the class in AGW. We used to have Dr. George and a couple of others, but they finally retired.Oh for the days of middle aged newsmen in horn rimmed glasses.


Thomas, we need to remember that Iowa is where the caucus fraud that resulted in the election of Obama began. I believe your LUN is an example of how wrong these ideas are.

The Chicago Way and the IoWay.

Bad biofuel corruption, aussi.


So the dude at Penn State who's a leading climatologist (I think it's Michael Mann) has his Ph.D. in . . . meteorology!

The comments to this entry are closed.