Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
carbon offset / trading greenhouse kyoto climate model Inconvenient Truth bio fuel ipcc Glacier

THE COPENHAGEN CALL

The following is from the World Business Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen that was held the last few days.


As global business leaders assembled at the World Business Summit on Climate Change, we call upon our political leaders to agree an ambitious and effective global climate treaty at COP15 in Copenhagen. Sustainable economic progress requires stabilizing and then reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Success at COP15 will remove uncertainty, unleash additional investment, and bolster current efforts to revive growth in a sustainable way.

By addressing the magnitude of the climate threat with urgency, a powerful global climate change treaty would help establish a firm foundation for a sustainable economic future. This would set a more predictable framework for companies to plan and invest, provide a stimulus for renewed prosperity and a more secure climate system. Economic recovery and urgent action to tackle climate change are complementary boosting the economy and jobs through investment in the new infrastructure needed to reduce emissions.

9 Jobs Lost For Every 4 Created

I will repeat the title with the full quote:

“Spain’s experience 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.”

Tony Blankley opines on RealClearPolitics (and elsewhere) that using government funding for creation of “green” jobs will reduce the net number of jobs in the US. If you are not familiar with Mr. Blankley, you can find his editorial work on The Washington Times, hear him occasionally on The MacLaughlin Group and he is the most intelligent voice on the nationally syndicated Left, Right and Center.

Renewable energy – our downfall?

There is a great post on the problems with all sorts of renewable energy on Watt’s Up With That.  He does a great job of explaining the various downsides of most power sources and their lack of compatibility with the modern needs of our society.

The article is a posting of an essay by Ralph Ellis but I couldn’t find the original essay to link to.

Check out the article here.

The article discusses

  • wind power
  • solar power
  • nuclear power
  • tidal power
  • hydrogen power
  • traditional coal and oil power

The conclusion is that most of the “alternatives” actually hurt our environment more or cost us dramatically more money.  The only realistic alternative is nuclear.

House panel advances global warming bill

I don’t typically post news feeds here but I am making an exception in this case. It appears that the House committee has passed the bill to implement the foolish cap and trade (carbon trading) bill. Let’s hope that the larger House is more wise but I have my doubts.

This story is from AP.

By DINA CAPPIELLO and H. JOSEF HEBERT

WASHINGTON (AP) Legislation imposing the first nationwide limits on the pollution blamed for global warming advanced in the House late Thursday, clearing a key committee despite strong Republican opposition.

The Energy and Commerce Committee approved the sweeping climate bill 33-25 after repeatedly turning back GOP attempts to kill or weaken the measure during four days of debate.

The Conveyor Belt is broken!?!?

I am shocked and dismayed! (Not really – just being a bit sarcastic and melodramatic)

One of the foundations of predicting the climate is that we have some idea of how water moves around the planet. That water can be in the form of water vapor or liquid water that is flowing in streams, lakes and the oceans. Since the Earth is approximately 2/3 water and water vapor is the single largest greenhouse gas, the way it acts is very important for understanding climate and predicting the future of climate.

Arctic (Non) Warming Since 1958

Great post on Watts Up With That regarding the supposed warming in the Arctic.  It appears, like we have seen so often, the warming that has occurred is only dependent on when you start from.  If you look at the last couple of decades, you may see warming but if you go back and look at the full expanse of the temperature data that we can gather, since 1958, the warming claim becomes much more tenuous.

Jump over to read WUWT if you like as the description is far clearer than what I will reproduce here.

Below is an overlay directly showing that 2009 temperatures (green) are similar to 1958 (red) and close to the mean.  Blue is mean temperature for the 41 year record.

, ,

Munger on cap and trade: Almost demented

Berkshire Hathaway Vice Chairman Charlie Munger tells CNBC’s Becky Quick why a carbon cap and trade system won’t work.

I absolutely agree with Mr. Munger. My rantings on cap and trade (or carbon trading) are almost constant on this site.

I also agree with Senator Gregg that we need to get 100 nuclear plants online as quickly as possible. Nuclear has problems but it is the best and most clean way to generate the amounts of energy that the United States needs.

, , , , , , ,

Carbon Reality, Again

The Wall Street Journal has an opinion on the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia and his failure of imposing cap and trade sanctions to their economy. The political realities of imposing a tax on certain portions of the economy to their detriment and the reward of other industries is difficult to justify. For instance:

  • are customers (industrial and consumer) willing to pay 10% more for their energy needs due to be generated from coal when another part of the country is served by nuclear?
  • are customers willing to pay considerably more for the trucking of fruits and vegetables than their fellow constituent that lives a little closer to the source?

Temperature is NOT heat

William DiPuccio has an excellent article that is discussed in Climate Skeptic and originally referred from Watts Up With That. He essentially is making the argument thant we spend a huge amount of time talking about temperature and what we really need to talk about is heat. I tried to make this argument many months ago (although not as well as Mr. DiPuccio) in “Analysis that doesn’t matter” when I discussed the techniques of combining temperature data to find the “average” temperature. I still contend that averaging of temperatures is mathematically and thermodynamically incorrect and that vector mathematics are required to solve the problem.

Watts Up With That reproduces Mr. DiPuccio’s thoughts as a guest post and Climate Skeptic discusses it in detail. Jump over to those two sites and have a read.

U.S. global warming rules won’t change to help polar bears

The LA Times is running with an article that says that the Obama administration will not reverse the Bush administration in using the scarcity of polar bears to curb emissions. About a year ago, the US listed the polar bear as a threatened species. The concern of many was that this ruling would be used to control, tax, and sue individual companies to reduce their CO2 output. The Bush administration said that wouldn’t be happening and now the Obama administration appears to agree.

I originally found this article by reading Watts Up With That so go over there and check out his handling of this story.