China’s government declared two strains of genetically modified rice safe to produce and consume, taking a major step toward endorsing the use of biotechnology in the staple food crop of billions of people in Asia.
Consider the following example. Suppose that I leave a box on the floor, and my wife trips on it, falling against my son, who is carrying a carton of eggs, which then fall and break. Our present approach to emissions would be analogous to deciding that the best way to prevent the breakage of eggs would be to outlaw leaving boxes on the floor. The chief difference is that in the case of atmospheric CO2 and climate catastrophe, the chain of inference is longer and less plausible than in my example.
via Richard S. Lindzen: The Climate Science Isn’t Settled – WSJ.com.
Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.
Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?
Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.
And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls “green stimulus”—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.
Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them.
First, where did this number 2035 (the year when glaciers could vanish) come from?
According to Prof Graham Cogley (Trent University, Ontario), a short article on the future of glaciers by a Russian scientist (Kotlyakov, V.M., 1996, The future of glaciers under the expected climate warming, 61-66, in Kotlyakov, V.M., ed., 1996, Variations of Snow and Ice in the Past and at Present on a Global and Regional Scale, Technical Documents in Hydrology, 1. UNESCO, Paris (IHP-IV Project H-4.1). 78p estimates 2350 as the year for disappearance of glaciers, but the IPCC authors misread 2350 as 2035 in the Official IPCC documents, WGII 2007 p. 493!
So we have a raging debate about impending glacier melt-down because of sloppiness of some IPCC authors! Further, according to Kotlyakov, the present glacier area of some 500,000 km2 could shrink to 100,000 km2 and this could happen NOT in 2035 but in 2350, if the current rate of warming continues. Also this estimated glacier area and its shrinkage does not include internal drainage basin of central Asia with an estimated area of some 40,000 km2 .
Let us now look at the statement that Himalayan glaciers are receding faster than in any other part of the world. How true is this statement?
Prof Graham Cogley (Trent University Peterborough Ontario Canada ) who has analyzed shrinkage rates of many glaciers also refutes the IPCC claim that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking faster than in any other part of the world. A recent news item from Science ( V 326 13 November 2009, p.924) cites Prof Jeffrey Kargel’s ( University of Arizona USA) study which suggests that many glaciers in the Karakoram Mountains ( straddling India and Pakistan) have stabilized or undergone an aggressive advance in recent years.
Among many important conclusions drawn by Raina in his comprehensive report, the following statement best describes the present state of the Himalayan glaciers: Glaciers in the Himalayas, over the past 100 years, behave in contrasting ways. Some glaciers (e.g. Sonapani) have retreated by as much as 500m in the last 100 years, while others ( e.g. Kangriz) have retreated just by an inch or so during the same period.
Thanks to Andrew Bolt for the link.
A great discussion on ABC on the leaked emails with Aynsley Kellow. He is a Professor and Head of the School of Government at the University of Tasmania and expert reviewer for the the United Nation’s IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change and Key Vulnerabilities.
He talks frankly about the issues and the future of climate science and public policy because of the revelations of the emails.
via Climate science: The leaked emails – Counterpoint – 30 November 2009.
Well, it fails completely. As I set out yesterday, the Rudd/Turnbull ETS is about redistributing wealth rather than erecting new plants. You can see this by following the money.
Rudd and Turnbull estimate that on the basis of a $26 per tonne carbon price (it could be closer to $35) the government will raise around $114 billion between 2011 and 2020. That’s money that Rudd and Turnbull plan to extract from the business community which will give businesses less cash flow to erect carbon reduction plants.
Rudd and Turnbull will give about 47 per cent of that $114 million or $54 billion, to 4.3 million Australian households who are on low or middle incomes. This huge proportion of the population will therefore have no incentive to reduce carbon because they are fully protected. Indeed 2.6 million of the households will receive assistance equal to around 120 per cent of their overall cost increases so they are better off. In other words Rudd and Turnbull are using the ETS legislation as a massive income redistribution exercise to boost the income of lower income people. Many in the community would say that boosting lower income levels is a good thing and that’s fair enough. But to make that a central part of the carbon legislation is just plain stupid.
The rest of the money is sprayed around industry in accordance with their lobbying influence over Rudd and Turnbull. Clearly the amount to be distributed is less than that which has been raised, so we have lots of losers. Exporters must buy permits, so making their products less competitive. Importers do not have to buy permits so it makes sense to make goods in countries that have no ETS laws.
via Turnbull fell for Rudd’s ETS con – Robert Gottliebsen – News – Business Spectator.
