Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands
- Thread starter Foxsea
- Start date
- Status
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
African Climate Data Not Fit For Purpose
By Paul Homewood
image
http://www.uneca.org/sites/default/...ate_data_network_and_rescuing_draft_final.pdf
In 2011, the UN published this paper on the quality, or otherwise, of climate records in Africa.
Their findings, though coming as no surprise, were clear.
image
This paper has looked on the situation of climate data and observations network in the continent. It is shown that the spatial distribution is poor with least coverage over rural areas, many stations do not operate and data from some of the operating stations is not fed into the international system. The quality of data is still poor with gaps of missing data and in some cases there are inefficient quality control systems.
The paper goes on to offer more damning facts:
Climate and weather recording in Africa started during the colonial time with a few number of meteorological stations in the continent (Griffiths and Peterson, 1997). Due to the importance of weather and climate information for various socio-economic sectors, the number of meteorological stations increased with time. However, the quality of data i.e., the continuity and the distribution of meteorological stations in Africa are not dense enough for applications such as weather and climate forecasting, climate studies and climate projections….
The density and coverage of existing African climate data observations network have generally been described in many literatures as poor and sparse (Parker et al., 2011; Institute Water for Africa; Washington et al., 2006). These studies warn that there is need to use with care and caution gridded and assimilated climate data derived from Africa…..
According to the Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organization, Michel Jarraud (Nov.6, 2006), Africa’s weather and climate monitoring system is deteriorating and needs major improvements to meet the challenges of climate change….
The climate observation network in Africa appears to be spatially uneven. Most of the stations are found in cities or airports which in most cases are confined along the main roads. Often times researchers complain about the closure of stations and scanty observations.
Add to all of this the large scale changes to micro climate, caused in the last few decades by deforestation and the like, and it is clear that long term temperature records for most of the continent are effectively worthless. This is something I have been banging the drum on for a while, for instance here.
None of this stops GISS from declaring that most of Africa has been warming in leaps
By Paul Homewood
image
http://www.uneca.org/sites/default/...ate_data_network_and_rescuing_draft_final.pdf
In 2011, the UN published this paper on the quality, or otherwise, of climate records in Africa.
Their findings, though coming as no surprise, were clear.
image
This paper has looked on the situation of climate data and observations network in the continent. It is shown that the spatial distribution is poor with least coverage over rural areas, many stations do not operate and data from some of the operating stations is not fed into the international system. The quality of data is still poor with gaps of missing data and in some cases there are inefficient quality control systems.
The paper goes on to offer more damning facts:
Climate and weather recording in Africa started during the colonial time with a few number of meteorological stations in the continent (Griffiths and Peterson, 1997). Due to the importance of weather and climate information for various socio-economic sectors, the number of meteorological stations increased with time. However, the quality of data i.e., the continuity and the distribution of meteorological stations in Africa are not dense enough for applications such as weather and climate forecasting, climate studies and climate projections….
The density and coverage of existing African climate data observations network have generally been described in many literatures as poor and sparse (Parker et al., 2011; Institute Water for Africa; Washington et al., 2006). These studies warn that there is need to use with care and caution gridded and assimilated climate data derived from Africa…..
According to the Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organization, Michel Jarraud (Nov.6, 2006), Africa’s weather and climate monitoring system is deteriorating and needs major improvements to meet the challenges of climate change….
The climate observation network in Africa appears to be spatially uneven. Most of the stations are found in cities or airports which in most cases are confined along the main roads. Often times researchers complain about the closure of stations and scanty observations.
Add to all of this the large scale changes to micro climate, caused in the last few decades by deforestation and the like, and it is clear that long term temperature records for most of the continent are effectively worthless. This is something I have been banging the drum on for a while, for instance here.
None of this stops GISS from declaring that most of Africa has been warming in leaps
Attachments
Maybe. Not sure.
I will not defend mis-spent taxpayer money - US or otherwise - renewable or not.
This does *NOT* mean that solar energy will not be and is not an important component of a renewable energy policy and infrastructure.
Speaking of subsidies - what do you think of this, 3x5?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/05/15/Canadas-34-Billion-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies/
IMF Pegs Canada's Fossil Fuel Subsidies at $34 Billion
In such giveaways we're a world leader, a fact rarely noted when federal budgets are debated.
By Mitchell Anderson, 15 May 2014, TheTyee.ca
There's a reason Canada enjoys some of the cheapest gas in the developed world. Nozzle photo via Shutterstock. .
While Canada slashes budgets for research, education and public broadcasting, there is one part of our economy that enjoys remarkable support from the Canadian taxpayer: the energy sector.
The International Monetary Fund estimates that energy subsidies in Canada top an incredible $34 billion each year in direct support to producers and uncollected tax on externalized costs.
These figures are found in the appendix of a major report released last year estimating global energy subsidies at almost $2 trillion. The report estimated that eliminating the subsidies would reduce global carbon emissions by 13 per cent. The stunning statistics specific to this country remain almost completely unreported in Canadian media.
Contacted by The Tyee, researchers from the IMF helpfully provided a detailed breakdown of Canadian subsidies provided to petroleum, natural gas and coal consumption. The lion's share of the $34 billion are uncollected taxes on the externalized costs of burning transportation fuels like gasoline and diesel -- about $19.4 billion in 2011. These externalized costs include impacts like traffic accidents, carbon emissions, air pollution and road congestion.
The report also referenced figures sourced from the OECD showing an additional $840 million in producer support to oil companies through a constellation of provincial and federal incentives to encourage fossil fuel extraction. This brought total petroleum subsidies in Canada in 2011 to $20.23 billion -- more than 20 times the annual budget of Environment Canada.
In comparison to other countries, Canada provides more subsidies to petroleum as a proportion of government revenue than any developed nation on Earth besides the United States and Luxembourg.
Natural gas consumption also enjoys billions in subsidies in Canada. The IMF estimates that un-priced carbon emissions from burning natural gas added up to $7.3 billion per year. There's another $440 million in producer support and $360 million in other un-taxed externalities, all of which tops $8.1 billion. This tax giveaway on natural gas alone is 44 per cent more than Canada provides in international aid every year.
What about coal? Canada consumes over 30 million tonnes per year. While we currently export over half our domestic production, the IMF study only considered externalized costs within our own country. They found that the coal industry receives $4.5 billion in annual subsides -- almost all of this is un-priced carbon and sulfur dioxide emissions. This generous largesse towards the dirtiest of fuels is about four times what the CBC receives in public support every year.
Or we could spend that on...
What could Canada do with an extra $34 billion a year? Both Vancouver and Toronto are struggling with how to fund long overdue upgrades to public transportation. Subway construction comes in at about $250 million per kilometre, meaning we could build about 140 kilometres of badly-needed urban subway lines every year. Light rail transport (LRT) is about one-quarter of the cost of subways, meaning for the same money we could build about 560 kilometres of at-grade transit infrastructure.
This foregone revenue in less than two years could fully fund the Big Move transit plan for southern Ontario, providing affordable access for 80 per cent of people living from Hamilton to Oshawa. Toronto's transit system has languished for decades. This sorely needed infrastructure would save the average household thousands in wasted time sitting in traffic, and Canada's economy billions in reduced congestion costs.
The proposed Vancouver subway line to the University of British Columbia could be built using less than two months of the subsidies provided every day to the energy sector. Forty kilometres of rapid transit in Surrey could be had for about the same amount.
What about green energy infrastructure? Adding solar and wind capacity provides some of the best job-generation per dollar of any option available -- more than seven times the employment from an equivalent investment in oil and gas extraction. Extrapolating the findings from a 2012 report on green jobs, $34 billion could create 500,000 person years of employment and install more than 150,000 megawatts of clean generating capacity. Canada currently ranks 12th in the G20 on green energy investment and has been steadily falling behind our competitors.
Canada's infrastructure deficit of crumbling roads and outdated water and sewage treatment is pegged at $171 billion. This backlog could be wiped out in five years with the revenue we are subsidizing to the energy sector.
Of course, not all things of value can be measured by bricks and mortar. Thirty-four billion dollars each year could provide $10-a-day childcare for 5.5 million children ages 0 to 5. Canada's child care costs are currently the highest in the OECD.
No free lunch in energy costs
For all the complaining Canadians do about fuel prices, it's ironic to note the IMF essentially says we are undervaluing the true cost of gasoline by about $0.30 per litre. Compared to other nations, Canada enjoys some of the cheapest gas in the developed world. Fuel in Italy and Germany is almost double our price at the pump. Ever think it's odd that bottled water at the gas station costs more than the fuel you just put in your tank?
Consider for a moment all the costs of finding and extracting crude oil, shipping it across the globe, refining it into gasoline and trucking it to your neighbourhood. Not to mention the billions spent by some countries projecting military power into volatile oil-producing parts of the world and the very human price of those interventions. Additional un-priced costs after petroleum is burned, such as climate change, traffic congestion, road accidents and air pollution make gasoline perhaps the most subsidized substance on Earth.
Every decision based on artificially low energy prices can have years of unintended consequences. If gas is cheap, people will choose to buy cars rather than take transit, clogging both our roads and emergency rooms. Transportation accidents alone cost Canada $3.7 billion each year. Every vehicle bought based on low fuel prices will produce years of carbon emissions, and every owner over the life of that vehicle will have an interest in voting for cheaper gas.
The opposite, of course, is also true. Less than half of Vancouverites in their early twenties today have chosen to get a driver's license, down from 60 per cent 10 years ago. Better public transit and more expensive car ownership seem to be the main factors driving this remarkable demographic shift.
The IMF can hardly be accused of being a left-leaning, alarmist organization. Through this valuable research, they make the case that there is no free lunch in energy costs, and we exclude these externalized costs at our peril.
A country can be judged on what it chooses to tax and what it chooses to subsidize. And by that yardstick, this nation currently seems to care more about cheap energy than almost anything else.
Last edited by a moderator:
http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/11/04/Tax-Breaks-for-BC-Frackers/
Tax Breaks for BC Frackers Reach over $1 Billion
Auditor general report details provincial incentives to largely foreign-owned gas giants.
By Andrew Nikiforuk, 4 Nov 2014, TheTyee.ca
Premier Christy Clark
Given falling gas prices and the province's slowed liquefied natural gas ambitions, the BC government has quietly subsidized the oil and gas industry over the past five years. Photo by David P. Ball.
The government of British Columbia has extended more than $1 billion in the form of tax credits to largely foreign-owned oil and gas companies fracking vast expanses of northern B.C. over the last five years.
According to the B.C. auditor general's 2014 summary financial statements report, the province delivered $587 million in incentives to the fracking industry alone last year and $412 million in 2013. The payments were all deducted from royalties.
Shale gas producers such as the Malaysian-owned Progress Energy or Houston-based Apache now pay the province a modest fee or royalty for the right to mine B.C.'s northern gas fields, which are owned by the citizens and First Nations of British Columbia.
Given falling gas prices and the province's slowed liquefied natural gas ambitions, the government has quietly subsidized the indebted industry with lower royalties and a variety of credits for deep well shale gas fracking, road construction and summer well drilling. (Most gas wells are drilled in the winter when the ground is hard.)
Under the program offered by Premier Christy Clark's government, industry "can simply reduce the royalty amount that they owe government by the incentive amount that they are entitled to," explains auditor general Carol Bellringer in the report.
The province has extended so many drilling and construction credits to the cash-strapped industry that 30 per cent of all gross natural gas royalty income is now subtracted from the provincial ledger and given back to industry.
More unclaimed incentives
At one time, natural gas royalties generated nearly $1 billion in revenue for the province. But since 2008, the government has lowered royalties and increased incentives to compensate for falling natural gas prices.
As a result of these policies, the industry generated $385 million in government revenue last year. That's less revenue than created by forestry industry.
Public and industry records show that the government extends more credits to the shale gas fracking industry than it currently earns in revenue.
The auditor general also noted that the government has granted another $1.25 billion in subsidies to the industry to drill deep and costly shale gas wells this year.
As a consequence, shale gas developers "have incurred expenditures that will qualify for $1.25 billion in incentive credits, but have not yet produced enough oil or natural gas to claim these amounts," explains the report.
"When these producers claim their incentive credits, that money will be deducted from the royalties that they owe, thereby reducing the amount of money government will generate."
The incentives combined with lowered royalty rates explain why natural gas extraction in B.C. has risen from 25-billion cubic metres a year in 2002 to 45-billion cubic metres in 2013 despite depressed prices for natural gas.
BC natural gas production royalties
Source: Policy Alternatives.
Risky royalty regime?
B.C.'s royalty regime is different than most other jurisdictions in North America, and it's much riskier than most, according to a report by Cambridge Energy Resources Associates and published by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in 2011.
Most governments take a greater share of resource revenue early in the producing life of gas well to shield owners of the resource from the risk of market price volatility and rapid depletion rates.
The report ranks fiscal regimes in North America on the basis of revenue risk on a scale of zero to five.
Governments that earned a high percentage of revenue early in the life of producing wells, such as Texas and Alaska, earned scores of higher than four.
Jurisdictions that expect to earn money at the end of a well's lifecycle earned zero. B.C. earned a score of 0.59. [Tyee]
Read more: Energy, Labour + Industry, BC Politics
Andrew Nikiforuk is an award-winning journalist who has been writing about the energy industry for two decades and is a contributing editor to The Tyee. Find his previous stories here.
This coverage of Canadian national issues is made possible because of generous financial support from our Tyee Builders.
Tax Breaks for BC Frackers Reach over $1 Billion
Auditor general report details provincial incentives to largely foreign-owned gas giants.
By Andrew Nikiforuk, 4 Nov 2014, TheTyee.ca
Premier Christy Clark
Given falling gas prices and the province's slowed liquefied natural gas ambitions, the BC government has quietly subsidized the oil and gas industry over the past five years. Photo by David P. Ball.
The government of British Columbia has extended more than $1 billion in the form of tax credits to largely foreign-owned oil and gas companies fracking vast expanses of northern B.C. over the last five years.
According to the B.C. auditor general's 2014 summary financial statements report, the province delivered $587 million in incentives to the fracking industry alone last year and $412 million in 2013. The payments were all deducted from royalties.
Shale gas producers such as the Malaysian-owned Progress Energy or Houston-based Apache now pay the province a modest fee or royalty for the right to mine B.C.'s northern gas fields, which are owned by the citizens and First Nations of British Columbia.
Given falling gas prices and the province's slowed liquefied natural gas ambitions, the government has quietly subsidized the indebted industry with lower royalties and a variety of credits for deep well shale gas fracking, road construction and summer well drilling. (Most gas wells are drilled in the winter when the ground is hard.)
Under the program offered by Premier Christy Clark's government, industry "can simply reduce the royalty amount that they owe government by the incentive amount that they are entitled to," explains auditor general Carol Bellringer in the report.
The province has extended so many drilling and construction credits to the cash-strapped industry that 30 per cent of all gross natural gas royalty income is now subtracted from the provincial ledger and given back to industry.
More unclaimed incentives
At one time, natural gas royalties generated nearly $1 billion in revenue for the province. But since 2008, the government has lowered royalties and increased incentives to compensate for falling natural gas prices.
As a result of these policies, the industry generated $385 million in government revenue last year. That's less revenue than created by forestry industry.
Public and industry records show that the government extends more credits to the shale gas fracking industry than it currently earns in revenue.
The auditor general also noted that the government has granted another $1.25 billion in subsidies to the industry to drill deep and costly shale gas wells this year.
As a consequence, shale gas developers "have incurred expenditures that will qualify for $1.25 billion in incentive credits, but have not yet produced enough oil or natural gas to claim these amounts," explains the report.
"When these producers claim their incentive credits, that money will be deducted from the royalties that they owe, thereby reducing the amount of money government will generate."
The incentives combined with lowered royalty rates explain why natural gas extraction in B.C. has risen from 25-billion cubic metres a year in 2002 to 45-billion cubic metres in 2013 despite depressed prices for natural gas.
BC natural gas production royalties
Source: Policy Alternatives.
Risky royalty regime?
B.C.'s royalty regime is different than most other jurisdictions in North America, and it's much riskier than most, according to a report by Cambridge Energy Resources Associates and published by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in 2011.
Most governments take a greater share of resource revenue early in the producing life of gas well to shield owners of the resource from the risk of market price volatility and rapid depletion rates.
The report ranks fiscal regimes in North America on the basis of revenue risk on a scale of zero to five.
Governments that earned a high percentage of revenue early in the life of producing wells, such as Texas and Alaska, earned scores of higher than four.
Jurisdictions that expect to earn money at the end of a well's lifecycle earned zero. B.C. earned a score of 0.59. [Tyee]
Read more: Energy, Labour + Industry, BC Politics
Andrew Nikiforuk is an award-winning journalist who has been writing about the energy industry for two decades and is a contributing editor to The Tyee. Find his previous stories here.
This coverage of Canadian national issues is made possible because of generous financial support from our Tyee Builders.
Attachments
I am assuming you are actually intelligent enough to understand the difference between daily weather and climate change, OBD - even though your blind cut and pasting does not demonstrate any understanding of this.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Electric car benefits? Just myths
It is time to stop our green worship of the electric car. It costs us a fortune, cuts little CO2 and surprisingly kills almost twice the number of people compared with regular gasoline cars.
It is time to stop our green worship of the electric car. It costs us a fortune, cuts little CO2 and surprisingly kills almost twice the number of people compared with regular gasoline cars.
Electric cars' global-warming benefits are small. It is advertised as a zero-emissions car, but in reality it only shifts emissions to electricity production, with most coming from fossil fuels. As green venture capitalist Vinod Khosla likes to point out, "Electric cars are coal-powered cars."
The most popular electric car, a Nissan Leaf, over a 90,000-mile lifetime will emit 31 metric tons of CO2, based on emissions from its production, its electricity consumption at average U.S. fuel mix and its ultimate scrapping. A comparable diesel Mercedes CDI A160 over a similar lifetime will emit 3 tons more across its production, diesel consumption and ultimate scrapping.
The results are similar for the top-line Tesla car, emitting about 44 tons, about 5 tons less than a similar Audi A7 Quattro.
Subsidies vs. savings
Yes, in both cases the electric car is better, but only by a tiny bit. Avoiding 3 tons of CO2 would cost less than $27 on Europe's emissions trading market. The annual benefit is about the cost of a cup of coffee. Yet U.S. taxpayers spend up to $7,500 in tax breaks for less than $27 of climate benefits. That's a bad deal.
The other main benefit from electric cars was supposed to be lower air pollution. Yes, it might be powered by coal, but unlike the regular car, coal emissions are far away from the city centers where more people live and where damage from air pollution hits hardest.
However, new research in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that while gasoline cars pollute closer to home, coal-fired power pollutes a lot more.
Like this column? Get more in your e-mail inbox
The researchers estimate that if the U.S. has 10% more gasoline cars in 2020, 870 more people will die each year in the U.S. from air pollution. Hybrids, because they are cleaner, will kill just 610 people. But 10% more electric vehicles powered on the average U.S. electricity mix will kill 1,617 more people every year, mostly from coal pollution. The electric car kills almost three times as many as a hybrid.
Of course, electric car proponents would venture that the perceived rapid ramp-up of renewables will make future electric cars much cleaner. This, however, is mostly wishful thinking. Today, the U.S. gets 14% of its electric power from renewables. In 25 years, Obama's Energy Information Administration estimates this will have gone up just 3 percentage points to 17%.
Similarly, fossil fuels generate 65% of U.S. electricity today, and will generate 64% in 2040, although natural gas will gain four percentage points and lead to slightly cleaner power.
Instead of focusing on electric cars, we should focus on making coal-fired power cleaner.
What proponents say
Proponents could also argue that the more mileage an electric car logs, the more its carbon footprint is reduced because the battery production is a significant part of their total emissions.
Yet, it hardly matters. The added mileage saves little in the way of emissions, and the electric car's extended use might mean it would have to replace its batteries, entirely blowing the climate benefit.
Moreover, because the Nissan gives you only 84 miles on a charge, most people buy it as a second car for shorter trips. If such a second car goes only 50,000 miles, it will actually end up emitting more CO2.
In the public conversation, electric cars are seen as the new uber-green. But they're nothing of the sort. If we had 25 million extra electric cars rather than gasoline cars on the road in 2020, they would over their lifetime avoid 75 million tons of CO2 at a market value of more than half a billion dollars.
However, at present-day subsidies, they would cost a phenomenal $188 billion while creating more pollution than gasoline cars, costing about $35 billion in lives cut short by poor air quality. For every dollar of cost, the electric car does less than half a cent of good.
For the next decades, hybrids are the way to go, while we innovate cheaper green energy that hopefully over some decades will make the electric car worthwhile.
Bjørn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalistand Cool It, is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center.
In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the Opinion front page or sign up for the daily Opinion e-mail newsletter.
It is time to stop our green worship of the electric car. It costs us a fortune, cuts little CO2 and surprisingly kills almost twice the number of people compared with regular gasoline cars.
It is time to stop our green worship of the electric car. It costs us a fortune, cuts little CO2 and surprisingly kills almost twice the number of people compared with regular gasoline cars.
Electric cars' global-warming benefits are small. It is advertised as a zero-emissions car, but in reality it only shifts emissions to electricity production, with most coming from fossil fuels. As green venture capitalist Vinod Khosla likes to point out, "Electric cars are coal-powered cars."
The most popular electric car, a Nissan Leaf, over a 90,000-mile lifetime will emit 31 metric tons of CO2, based on emissions from its production, its electricity consumption at average U.S. fuel mix and its ultimate scrapping. A comparable diesel Mercedes CDI A160 over a similar lifetime will emit 3 tons more across its production, diesel consumption and ultimate scrapping.
The results are similar for the top-line Tesla car, emitting about 44 tons, about 5 tons less than a similar Audi A7 Quattro.
Subsidies vs. savings
Yes, in both cases the electric car is better, but only by a tiny bit. Avoiding 3 tons of CO2 would cost less than $27 on Europe's emissions trading market. The annual benefit is about the cost of a cup of coffee. Yet U.S. taxpayers spend up to $7,500 in tax breaks for less than $27 of climate benefits. That's a bad deal.
The other main benefit from electric cars was supposed to be lower air pollution. Yes, it might be powered by coal, but unlike the regular car, coal emissions are far away from the city centers where more people live and where damage from air pollution hits hardest.
However, new research in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that while gasoline cars pollute closer to home, coal-fired power pollutes a lot more.
Like this column? Get more in your e-mail inbox
The researchers estimate that if the U.S. has 10% more gasoline cars in 2020, 870 more people will die each year in the U.S. from air pollution. Hybrids, because they are cleaner, will kill just 610 people. But 10% more electric vehicles powered on the average U.S. electricity mix will kill 1,617 more people every year, mostly from coal pollution. The electric car kills almost three times as many as a hybrid.
Of course, electric car proponents would venture that the perceived rapid ramp-up of renewables will make future electric cars much cleaner. This, however, is mostly wishful thinking. Today, the U.S. gets 14% of its electric power from renewables. In 25 years, Obama's Energy Information Administration estimates this will have gone up just 3 percentage points to 17%.
Similarly, fossil fuels generate 65% of U.S. electricity today, and will generate 64% in 2040, although natural gas will gain four percentage points and lead to slightly cleaner power.
Instead of focusing on electric cars, we should focus on making coal-fired power cleaner.
What proponents say
Proponents could also argue that the more mileage an electric car logs, the more its carbon footprint is reduced because the battery production is a significant part of their total emissions.
Yet, it hardly matters. The added mileage saves little in the way of emissions, and the electric car's extended use might mean it would have to replace its batteries, entirely blowing the climate benefit.
Moreover, because the Nissan gives you only 84 miles on a charge, most people buy it as a second car for shorter trips. If such a second car goes only 50,000 miles, it will actually end up emitting more CO2.
In the public conversation, electric cars are seen as the new uber-green. But they're nothing of the sort. If we had 25 million extra electric cars rather than gasoline cars on the road in 2020, they would over their lifetime avoid 75 million tons of CO2 at a market value of more than half a billion dollars.
However, at present-day subsidies, they would cost a phenomenal $188 billion while creating more pollution than gasoline cars, costing about $35 billion in lives cut short by poor air quality. For every dollar of cost, the electric car does less than half a cent of good.
For the next decades, hybrids are the way to go, while we innovate cheaper green energy that hopefully over some decades will make the electric car worthwhile.
Bjørn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalistand Cool It, is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center.
In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the Opinion front page or sign up for the daily Opinion e-mail newsletter.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
NYT SMEARS SCIENTIST WILLIE SOON FOR TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT ‘GLOBAL WARMING’
AP Photo/Romas Dabrukas
Another day, another attack on the integrity of the Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, this time in the New York Times.
I first became aware of Soon in 2009 when reading through the Climategate emails. One of them was a jocular suggestion by a warmist called Tom Wigley as to how best to smear Soon and his co-author Sallie Baliunas.
Might be interesting to see how frequently Soon and Baliunas, individually, are cited (as astronomers). Are they any good in their own fields? Perhaps we could start referring to them as astrologers (excusable as…’oops, just a typo’).
You might be wondering what Soon and Baliunas had done to incur the wrath of the climate alarmist establishment. Well, they’d just published a meta-analysis of all the papers which had been written on the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). What their paper showed is that contrary to claims by one Michael Mann (the name may be familiar), the MWP was not a small, localised event but global, big and widespread.
So the memo went out from the Hockey Team (the uber-vindictive Mann and his lickspittle posse) to get Soon, and they’ve been going at him ever since: not by criticising the quality of his science — that would be too difficult because his science is impeccable — but simply by trying to make his life miserable, deny him tenure, and to smear him as compromised and corrupt.
The reason for the latest attack on Soon is that he is the co-author, with Christopher Monckton et al, of a paper published earlier this year in the prestigious Chinese Academy of Sciences journal Science Bulletin.
This study — Why Models Run Hot — infuriated the alarmist establishment, first because it was unusually popular (receiving over 10,000 views — thousands more than most scientific papers get) and second because it made a mockery of their cherished computer models.
As Paul Driessen explains:
Results from an irreducibly simple climate model,” concluded that, once discrepancies in IPCC computer models are taken into account, the impact of CO2-driven manmade global warming over the next century (and beyond) is likely to be “no more than one-third to one-half of the IPCC’s current projections” – that is, just 1-2 degrees C (2-4 deg F) by 2100! That’s akin to the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and would be beneficial, not harmful.
Rather than attack the substance of the paper, the warmists reverted to their usual tricks, lead by Kert Davies, an activist lawyer who works for a Greenpeace front organisation called Climate Investigations Center.
Climate Investigations Center executive director (and former top Greenpeace official) Kert Davies told the Boston Globe it “simply cannot be true” that the authors have no conflict of interest over their study, considering their alleged industry funding sources and outside consulting fees. Davies singled out Dr. Willie Soon, saying the Harvard researcher received more than $1 million from companies that support studies critical of manmade climate change claims. An allied group launched a petition drive to have Dr. Soon fired.
Davies’ libelous assertions have no basis in fact. Not one of these four authors received a dime in grants or other payments for researching and writing their climate models paper. Every one of them did the work on his own time. The only money contributed to the Science Bulletin effort went to paying the “public access” fees, so that people could read their study for free.
I spoke to Soon last night. He told me that of course he receives private funding for his research: he has to because it’s his only way of making ends meet, especially since the Alarmist establishment launched its vendetta against him when, from 2009 onwards, he became more outspoken in his critiques of global warming theory.
Harvard-Smithsonian strove to make his life harder and harder, first by banning him from working on anything even remotely connected with issues like climate change or CO2, then by moving his office away from the astrophysics department to a remote area Soon calls Siberia. What the faculty couldn’t quite do was actually sack Soon because it had no cause: he was producing too many quality papers, and he was also bringing in too much money (40 per cent of which goes straight into the faculty coffers).
So there’s nothing new or scandalous about this latest New York Times hit job on poor Willie Soon. It’s just a continuation of a vendetta which has been waged for years against an honest, decent, hardworking — and incredibly brave — scientist who refuses to toe the official (and increasingly discredited) line on man-made global warming.
What most definitely is scandalous is the vile hypocrisy of Soon’s harrassment by the warmist establishment, which receives billions every year from the US government, left-wing charities, and billionaire activists like Tom Steyer and George Soros to prop up their bankrupt cause by promoting exactly the kind of junk science which Soon (and similarly principled scientists) have made it their business to shred.
The warmists are losing their argument. Their desperation is beginning to show.
AP Photo/Romas Dabrukas
Another day, another attack on the integrity of the Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, this time in the New York Times.
I first became aware of Soon in 2009 when reading through the Climategate emails. One of them was a jocular suggestion by a warmist called Tom Wigley as to how best to smear Soon and his co-author Sallie Baliunas.
Might be interesting to see how frequently Soon and Baliunas, individually, are cited (as astronomers). Are they any good in their own fields? Perhaps we could start referring to them as astrologers (excusable as…’oops, just a typo’).
You might be wondering what Soon and Baliunas had done to incur the wrath of the climate alarmist establishment. Well, they’d just published a meta-analysis of all the papers which had been written on the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). What their paper showed is that contrary to claims by one Michael Mann (the name may be familiar), the MWP was not a small, localised event but global, big and widespread.
So the memo went out from the Hockey Team (the uber-vindictive Mann and his lickspittle posse) to get Soon, and they’ve been going at him ever since: not by criticising the quality of his science — that would be too difficult because his science is impeccable — but simply by trying to make his life miserable, deny him tenure, and to smear him as compromised and corrupt.
The reason for the latest attack on Soon is that he is the co-author, with Christopher Monckton et al, of a paper published earlier this year in the prestigious Chinese Academy of Sciences journal Science Bulletin.
This study — Why Models Run Hot — infuriated the alarmist establishment, first because it was unusually popular (receiving over 10,000 views — thousands more than most scientific papers get) and second because it made a mockery of their cherished computer models.
As Paul Driessen explains:
Results from an irreducibly simple climate model,” concluded that, once discrepancies in IPCC computer models are taken into account, the impact of CO2-driven manmade global warming over the next century (and beyond) is likely to be “no more than one-third to one-half of the IPCC’s current projections” – that is, just 1-2 degrees C (2-4 deg F) by 2100! That’s akin to the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and would be beneficial, not harmful.
Rather than attack the substance of the paper, the warmists reverted to their usual tricks, lead by Kert Davies, an activist lawyer who works for a Greenpeace front organisation called Climate Investigations Center.
Climate Investigations Center executive director (and former top Greenpeace official) Kert Davies told the Boston Globe it “simply cannot be true” that the authors have no conflict of interest over their study, considering their alleged industry funding sources and outside consulting fees. Davies singled out Dr. Willie Soon, saying the Harvard researcher received more than $1 million from companies that support studies critical of manmade climate change claims. An allied group launched a petition drive to have Dr. Soon fired.
Davies’ libelous assertions have no basis in fact. Not one of these four authors received a dime in grants or other payments for researching and writing their climate models paper. Every one of them did the work on his own time. The only money contributed to the Science Bulletin effort went to paying the “public access” fees, so that people could read their study for free.
I spoke to Soon last night. He told me that of course he receives private funding for his research: he has to because it’s his only way of making ends meet, especially since the Alarmist establishment launched its vendetta against him when, from 2009 onwards, he became more outspoken in his critiques of global warming theory.
Harvard-Smithsonian strove to make his life harder and harder, first by banning him from working on anything even remotely connected with issues like climate change or CO2, then by moving his office away from the astrophysics department to a remote area Soon calls Siberia. What the faculty couldn’t quite do was actually sack Soon because it had no cause: he was producing too many quality papers, and he was also bringing in too much money (40 per cent of which goes straight into the faculty coffers).
So there’s nothing new or scandalous about this latest New York Times hit job on poor Willie Soon. It’s just a continuation of a vendetta which has been waged for years against an honest, decent, hardworking — and incredibly brave — scientist who refuses to toe the official (and increasingly discredited) line on man-made global warming.
What most definitely is scandalous is the vile hypocrisy of Soon’s harrassment by the warmist establishment, which receives billions every year from the US government, left-wing charities, and billionaire activists like Tom Steyer and George Soros to prop up their bankrupt cause by promoting exactly the kind of junk science which Soon (and similarly principled scientists) have made it their business to shred.
The warmists are losing their argument. Their desperation is beginning to show.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Oh what a wicked web we weave when our intention is to deceive
Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/u...-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html
For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.
One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.
But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
Though Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.
The documents were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, under the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace and an allied group, the Climate Investigations Center, shared them with several news organizations last week.
The documents shed light on the role of scientists like Dr. Soon in fostering public debate over whether human activity is causing global warming. The vast majority of experts have concluded that it is and that greenhouse emissions pose long-term risks to civilization.
Historians and sociologists of science say that since the tobacco wars of the 1960s, corporations trying to block legislation that hurts their interests have employed a strategy of creating the appearance of scientific doubt, usually with the help of ostensibly independent researchers who accept industry funding.
Fossil-fuel interests have followed this approach for years, but the mechanics of their activities remained largely hidden.
“The whole doubt-mongering strategy relies on creating the impression of scientific debate,” said Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University and the co-author of “Merchants of Doubt,” a book about such campaigns. “Willie Soon is playing a role in a certain kind of political theater.”
Environmentalists have long questioned Dr. Soon’s work, and his acceptance of funding from the fossil-fuel industry was previously known. But the full extent of the links was not; the documents show that corporate contributions were tied to specific papers and were not disclosed, as required by modern standards of publishing
“What it shows is the continuation of a long-term campaign by specific fossil-fuel companies and interests to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change,” said Kert Davies, executive director of the Climate Investigations Center, a group funded by foundations seeking to limit the risks of climate change.
Charles R. Alcock, director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center, acknowledged on Friday that Dr. Soon had violated the disclosure standards of some journals.
“I think that’s inappropriate behavior,” Dr. Alcock said. “This frankly becomes a personnel matter, which we have to handle with Dr. Soon internally.”
Dr. Soon is employed by the Smithsonian Institution, which jointly sponsors the astrophysics center with Harvard.
“I am aware of the situation with Willie Soon, and I’m very concerned about it,” W. John Kress, interim under secretary for science at the Smithsonian in Washington, said on Friday. “We are checking into this ourselves.”
Dr. Soon rarely grants interviews to reporters, and he did not respond to multiple emails and phone calls last week; nor did he respond to an interview request conveyed to him by his employer. In past public appearances, he has reacted angrily to questions about his funding sources, but then acknowledged some corporate ties and said that they had not altered his scientific findings.
“I write proposals; I let them decide whether to fund me or not,” he said at an event in Madison, Wis., in 2013. “If they choose to fund me, I’m happy to receive it.” A moment later, he added, “I would never be motivated by money for anything.”
The newly disclosed documents, plus additional documents compiled by Greenpeace over the last four years, show that at least $409,000 of Dr. Soon’s funding in the past decade came from Southern Company Services, a subsidiary of the Southern Company, based in Atlanta.
Southern is one of the largest utility holding companies in the country, with huge investments in coal-burning power plants. The company has spent heavily over many years to lobby against greenhouse-gas regulations in Washington. More recently, it has spent significant money to research ways to limit emissions.
“Southern Company funds a broad range of research on a number of topics that have potentially significant public-policy implications for our business,” said Jeannice M. Hall, a spokeswoman. The company declined to answer detailed questions about its funding of Dr. Soon’s research.
Dr. Soon also received at least $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. (Mr. Koch’s fortune derives partly from oilrefining.) However, other companies and industry groups that once supported Dr. Soon, including Exxon Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute, appear to have eliminated their grants to him in recent years.
As the oil-industry contributions fell, Dr. Soon started receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars through DonorsTrust, an organization based in Alexandria, Va., that accepts money from donors who wish to remain anonymous, then funnels it to various conservative causes.
Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/u...-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html
For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.
One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.
But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
Though Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.
The documents were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, under the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace and an allied group, the Climate Investigations Center, shared them with several news organizations last week.
The documents shed light on the role of scientists like Dr. Soon in fostering public debate over whether human activity is causing global warming. The vast majority of experts have concluded that it is and that greenhouse emissions pose long-term risks to civilization.
Historians and sociologists of science say that since the tobacco wars of the 1960s, corporations trying to block legislation that hurts their interests have employed a strategy of creating the appearance of scientific doubt, usually with the help of ostensibly independent researchers who accept industry funding.
Fossil-fuel interests have followed this approach for years, but the mechanics of their activities remained largely hidden.
“The whole doubt-mongering strategy relies on creating the impression of scientific debate,” said Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University and the co-author of “Merchants of Doubt,” a book about such campaigns. “Willie Soon is playing a role in a certain kind of political theater.”
Environmentalists have long questioned Dr. Soon’s work, and his acceptance of funding from the fossil-fuel industry was previously known. But the full extent of the links was not; the documents show that corporate contributions were tied to specific papers and were not disclosed, as required by modern standards of publishing
“What it shows is the continuation of a long-term campaign by specific fossil-fuel companies and interests to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change,” said Kert Davies, executive director of the Climate Investigations Center, a group funded by foundations seeking to limit the risks of climate change.
Charles R. Alcock, director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center, acknowledged on Friday that Dr. Soon had violated the disclosure standards of some journals.
“I think that’s inappropriate behavior,” Dr. Alcock said. “This frankly becomes a personnel matter, which we have to handle with Dr. Soon internally.”
Dr. Soon is employed by the Smithsonian Institution, which jointly sponsors the astrophysics center with Harvard.
“I am aware of the situation with Willie Soon, and I’m very concerned about it,” W. John Kress, interim under secretary for science at the Smithsonian in Washington, said on Friday. “We are checking into this ourselves.”
Dr. Soon rarely grants interviews to reporters, and he did not respond to multiple emails and phone calls last week; nor did he respond to an interview request conveyed to him by his employer. In past public appearances, he has reacted angrily to questions about his funding sources, but then acknowledged some corporate ties and said that they had not altered his scientific findings.
“I write proposals; I let them decide whether to fund me or not,” he said at an event in Madison, Wis., in 2013. “If they choose to fund me, I’m happy to receive it.” A moment later, he added, “I would never be motivated by money for anything.”
The newly disclosed documents, plus additional documents compiled by Greenpeace over the last four years, show that at least $409,000 of Dr. Soon’s funding in the past decade came from Southern Company Services, a subsidiary of the Southern Company, based in Atlanta.
Southern is one of the largest utility holding companies in the country, with huge investments in coal-burning power plants. The company has spent heavily over many years to lobby against greenhouse-gas regulations in Washington. More recently, it has spent significant money to research ways to limit emissions.
“Southern Company funds a broad range of research on a number of topics that have potentially significant public-policy implications for our business,” said Jeannice M. Hall, a spokeswoman. The company declined to answer detailed questions about its funding of Dr. Soon’s research.
Dr. Soon also received at least $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. (Mr. Koch’s fortune derives partly from oilrefining.) However, other companies and industry groups that once supported Dr. Soon, including Exxon Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute, appear to have eliminated their grants to him in recent years.
As the oil-industry contributions fell, Dr. Soon started receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars through DonorsTrust, an organization based in Alexandria, Va., that accepts money from donors who wish to remain anonymous, then funnels it to various conservative causes.
GLG
Well-Known Member
cont.....
The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, in Cambridge, Mass., is a joint venture between Harvard and the Smithsonian Institution, housing some 300 scientists from both institutions. Because the Smithsonian is a government agency, Greenpeace was able to request that Dr. Soon’s correspondence and grant agreements be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Though often described on conservative news programs as a “Harvard astrophysicist,” Dr. Soon is not an astrophysicist and has never been employed by Harvard. He is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian Institution with a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering. He has received little federal research money over the past decade and is thus responsible for bringing in his own funds, including his salary.
Though he has little formal training in climatology, Dr. Soon has for years published papers trying to show that variations in the sun’s energy can explain most recent global warming. His thesis is that human activity has played a relatively small role in causing climate change.
Many experts in the field say that Dr. Soon uses out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human behavior in climate change.
Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, a NASA division that studies climate change, said that the sun had probably accounted for no more than 10 percent of recent global warming and that greenhouse gases produced by human activity explained most of it.
“The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless,” Dr. Schmidt said.
The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, whose scientists focus largely on understanding distant stars and galaxies, routinely distances itself from Dr. Soon’s findings. The Smithsonian has also published a statement accepting the scientific consensus on climate change.
Dr. Alcock said that, aside from the disclosure issue, he thought it was important to protect Dr. Soon’s academic freedom, even if most of his colleagues disagreed with his findings.
Dr. Soon has found a warm welcome among politicians in Washington and state capitals who try to block climate action. United States Senator James M. Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who claimsthat climate change is a global scientific hoax, has repeatedly cited Dr. Soon’s work over the years.
In a Senate debate last month, Mr. Inhofe pointed to a poster with photos of scientists questioning the climate-change consensus, including Dr. Soon. “These are scientists that cannot be challenged,” the senator said. A spokeswoman for the senator said Friday that he was traveling and could not be reached for comment.
As of late last week, most of the journals in which Dr. Soon’s work had appeared were not aware of the newly disclosed documents. The Climate Investigations Center is planning to notify them over the coming week. Several journals advised of the situation by The New York Times said they would look into the matter.
Robert J. Strangeway, the editor of a journal that published three of Dr. Soon’s papers, said that editors relied on authors to be candid about any conflicts of interest. “We assume that when people put stuff in a paper, or anywhere else, they’re basically being honest,” said Dr. Strangeway, editor of the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics.
Dr. Oreskes, the Harvard science historian, said that academic institutions and scientific journals had been too lax in recent decades in ferreting out dubious research created to serve a corporate agenda.
“I think universities desperately need to look more closely at this issue,” Dr. Oreskes said. She added that Dr. Soon’s papers omitting disclosure of his corporate funding should be retracted by the journals that published them.
The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, in Cambridge, Mass., is a joint venture between Harvard and the Smithsonian Institution, housing some 300 scientists from both institutions. Because the Smithsonian is a government agency, Greenpeace was able to request that Dr. Soon’s correspondence and grant agreements be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Though often described on conservative news programs as a “Harvard astrophysicist,” Dr. Soon is not an astrophysicist and has never been employed by Harvard. He is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian Institution with a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering. He has received little federal research money over the past decade and is thus responsible for bringing in his own funds, including his salary.
Though he has little formal training in climatology, Dr. Soon has for years published papers trying to show that variations in the sun’s energy can explain most recent global warming. His thesis is that human activity has played a relatively small role in causing climate change.
Many experts in the field say that Dr. Soon uses out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human behavior in climate change.
Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, a NASA division that studies climate change, said that the sun had probably accounted for no more than 10 percent of recent global warming and that greenhouse gases produced by human activity explained most of it.
“The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless,” Dr. Schmidt said.
The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, whose scientists focus largely on understanding distant stars and galaxies, routinely distances itself from Dr. Soon’s findings. The Smithsonian has also published a statement accepting the scientific consensus on climate change.
Dr. Alcock said that, aside from the disclosure issue, he thought it was important to protect Dr. Soon’s academic freedom, even if most of his colleagues disagreed with his findings.
Dr. Soon has found a warm welcome among politicians in Washington and state capitals who try to block climate action. United States Senator James M. Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who claimsthat climate change is a global scientific hoax, has repeatedly cited Dr. Soon’s work over the years.
In a Senate debate last month, Mr. Inhofe pointed to a poster with photos of scientists questioning the climate-change consensus, including Dr. Soon. “These are scientists that cannot be challenged,” the senator said. A spokeswoman for the senator said Friday that he was traveling and could not be reached for comment.
As of late last week, most of the journals in which Dr. Soon’s work had appeared were not aware of the newly disclosed documents. The Climate Investigations Center is planning to notify them over the coming week. Several journals advised of the situation by The New York Times said they would look into the matter.
Robert J. Strangeway, the editor of a journal that published three of Dr. Soon’s papers, said that editors relied on authors to be candid about any conflicts of interest. “We assume that when people put stuff in a paper, or anywhere else, they’re basically being honest,” said Dr. Strangeway, editor of the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics.
Dr. Oreskes, the Harvard science historian, said that academic institutions and scientific journals had been too lax in recent decades in ferreting out dubious research created to serve a corporate agenda.
“I think universities desperately need to look more closely at this issue,” Dr. Oreskes said. She added that Dr. Soon’s papers omitting disclosure of his corporate funding should be retracted by the journals that published them.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Break out the popcorn this should get interesting.....
Senator Markey questions climate studies
Calls for review of links to energy companies
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...nce-funding/Ex1QsGTBrCYRYlZTmruunO/story.html
WASHINGTON — Senator Edward J. Markey is calling on coal and oil companies to reveal whether they are funding scientific climate change studies after his staff reviewed newly obtained documents illuminating the relationship between a researcher for a Cambridge-based institution and energy interests.
The Massachusetts Democrat will send letters to fossil fuel companies, trade organizations, and others with a stake in carbon fuels, aiming to reveal other climate-change-skeptical scientists whose work has been subsidized by those parties, a Markey spokesman said via e-mail.
“For years, fossil fuel interests and front groups have attacked climate scientists and legislation to cut carbon pollution using junk science and debunked arguments,” Markey said in a statement. “The American public deserve an honest debate that isn’t polluted by the best junk science fossil fuel interests can buy. That’s why I will be launching this investigation to see how widespread this denial-for-hire scheme stretches within the anti-climate action cabal.”
The documents reviewed by Markey’s staff were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, through the Freedom of Information Act. They show a relationship between Dr. Willie Soon, a solar researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and several fossil fuel companies who’ve funded his research on climate change. The Cambridge-based center is a joint project of Harvard University and the Smithsonian Institution, though Soon is employed by the Smithsonian side. The center has previously said that Soon’s views are his alone and not reflective of the institution.
In 2013, the Boston Globe profiled Soon, who has spent much of the past decade studying the sun’s effect on climate change and downplaying the role of carbon emissions. Some climate scientists and environmental groups have questioned the scientific basis of his work.
Soon did not respond to a request for comment.
Since 2001, Soon has received more than $1 million in grants from the ExxonMobil Foundation, Southern Company, the Texaco Foundation, the American Petroleum Institute, and other organizations either affiliated with fossil fuel companies or active in undermining carbon’s role in climate change, according to documents that have been previously reported. Soon also is affiliated with the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank known for its conferences on climate change skepticism.
The new documents, which were given to the Globe by Kert Davies, an environmental activist who is executive director of the Virginia-based Climate Investigations Center, contain proposals and contracts made between the Smithsonian wing of the center and four entities: ExxonMobil, Southern Company, DonorsTrust and The Charles G. Koch Foundation.
Southern Company is one of the country’s largest power companies, operating coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, and natural gas plants across the southern United States. DonorsTrust relays donations from anonymous patrons “dedicated to the ideals of limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise,” according to its website. Koch is a libertarian-conservative mogul who has fought climate change rules.
The newly obtained documents show Soon received more than $270,000 from DonorsTrust and close to $60,000 from Southern Company for solar studies since 2012.
Soon and three co-authors in January published in a Chinese journal a study in which they said the United Nations panel on climate change used a flawed methodology to estimate global temperature change. The authors said they have developed a more accurate model and the panel’s calculations are exaggerated. Christopher Monckton, one of the paper’s co-authors, insisted he, Soon, and the other two co-authors funded the study entirely. He also said the study was done on the researchers’ own free time and that Soon’s funding from DonorsTrust and Southern Company had nothing to do with the paper published in Science Bulletin.
Soon said in the study that he had no previous conflicts of interest in the study despite his previous funding, and Science Bulletin, the journal that published the study, did not comment on whether that funding can be considered one. Science Bulletin is investigating the matter but did not respond to requests for comment about their findings.
Co-author Dr. William Briggs declined to comment.
While Southern Company has taken measures to reduce its carbon footprint, it also funded a 2010 study conducted by Soon entitled “Avoiding Carbon Myopia: Three Considerations for Policy Makers Concerning Manmade Carbon Dioxide.” The study accused the UN panel of overstating the negative environmental effects of carbon dioxide emissions. It also said efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions wouldn’t have a measurable effect on severe weather or levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, according to a report Soon submitted to Southern Company in May 2011.
The report also highlights a March 2011 study funded by Southern Company, which calls the panel’s global warning alarm “an anti-scientific political movement.”
Southern Company funds research on issues with public policy implications on its business, but is committed to producing clean and reliable electricity, said spokesman Jack Bonnikson via e-mail.
Senator Markey questions climate studies
Calls for review of links to energy companies
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...nce-funding/Ex1QsGTBrCYRYlZTmruunO/story.html
WASHINGTON — Senator Edward J. Markey is calling on coal and oil companies to reveal whether they are funding scientific climate change studies after his staff reviewed newly obtained documents illuminating the relationship between a researcher for a Cambridge-based institution and energy interests.
The Massachusetts Democrat will send letters to fossil fuel companies, trade organizations, and others with a stake in carbon fuels, aiming to reveal other climate-change-skeptical scientists whose work has been subsidized by those parties, a Markey spokesman said via e-mail.
“For years, fossil fuel interests and front groups have attacked climate scientists and legislation to cut carbon pollution using junk science and debunked arguments,” Markey said in a statement. “The American public deserve an honest debate that isn’t polluted by the best junk science fossil fuel interests can buy. That’s why I will be launching this investigation to see how widespread this denial-for-hire scheme stretches within the anti-climate action cabal.”
The documents reviewed by Markey’s staff were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, through the Freedom of Information Act. They show a relationship between Dr. Willie Soon, a solar researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and several fossil fuel companies who’ve funded his research on climate change. The Cambridge-based center is a joint project of Harvard University and the Smithsonian Institution, though Soon is employed by the Smithsonian side. The center has previously said that Soon’s views are his alone and not reflective of the institution.
In 2013, the Boston Globe profiled Soon, who has spent much of the past decade studying the sun’s effect on climate change and downplaying the role of carbon emissions. Some climate scientists and environmental groups have questioned the scientific basis of his work.
Soon did not respond to a request for comment.
Since 2001, Soon has received more than $1 million in grants from the ExxonMobil Foundation, Southern Company, the Texaco Foundation, the American Petroleum Institute, and other organizations either affiliated with fossil fuel companies or active in undermining carbon’s role in climate change, according to documents that have been previously reported. Soon also is affiliated with the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank known for its conferences on climate change skepticism.
The new documents, which were given to the Globe by Kert Davies, an environmental activist who is executive director of the Virginia-based Climate Investigations Center, contain proposals and contracts made between the Smithsonian wing of the center and four entities: ExxonMobil, Southern Company, DonorsTrust and The Charles G. Koch Foundation.
Southern Company is one of the country’s largest power companies, operating coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, and natural gas plants across the southern United States. DonorsTrust relays donations from anonymous patrons “dedicated to the ideals of limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise,” according to its website. Koch is a libertarian-conservative mogul who has fought climate change rules.
The newly obtained documents show Soon received more than $270,000 from DonorsTrust and close to $60,000 from Southern Company for solar studies since 2012.
Soon and three co-authors in January published in a Chinese journal a study in which they said the United Nations panel on climate change used a flawed methodology to estimate global temperature change. The authors said they have developed a more accurate model and the panel’s calculations are exaggerated. Christopher Monckton, one of the paper’s co-authors, insisted he, Soon, and the other two co-authors funded the study entirely. He also said the study was done on the researchers’ own free time and that Soon’s funding from DonorsTrust and Southern Company had nothing to do with the paper published in Science Bulletin.
Soon said in the study that he had no previous conflicts of interest in the study despite his previous funding, and Science Bulletin, the journal that published the study, did not comment on whether that funding can be considered one. Science Bulletin is investigating the matter but did not respond to requests for comment about their findings.
Co-author Dr. William Briggs declined to comment.
While Southern Company has taken measures to reduce its carbon footprint, it also funded a 2010 study conducted by Soon entitled “Avoiding Carbon Myopia: Three Considerations for Policy Makers Concerning Manmade Carbon Dioxide.” The study accused the UN panel of overstating the negative environmental effects of carbon dioxide emissions. It also said efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions wouldn’t have a measurable effect on severe weather or levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, according to a report Soon submitted to Southern Company in May 2011.
The report also highlights a March 2011 study funded by Southern Company, which calls the panel’s global warning alarm “an anti-scientific political movement.”
Southern Company funds research on issues with public policy implications on its business, but is committed to producing clean and reliable electricity, said spokesman Jack Bonnikson via e-mail.
Last edited by a moderator:
GLG
Well-Known Member
[h=1]Science Denial Always Involves A Component Of Conspiratorial Thought[/h]
Attacks on scientists and their research are very common in the public debate surrounding global warming. The attacks don’t need to make any sense nor is there a need for merit to the raised criticisms. For climate science deniers it’s more about maintaining their ideological mental armour so they can keep their world view in tact.
In this arena two papers by Stephan Lewandowsky stand out by the sheer tenacity and vitriolic nature of the attacks. The paper NASA Faked the Moon Landing − Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science was, and still is, relentlessly attacked for the inconvenient results it contains.
This study found a small, but significant, relation between rejecting climate science and accepting other conspiracy theories. For anyone who spends any time on the internet this will not be a shocking result. Especially if you’ve had any interaction with creationists, a group who also often rejects human caused global warming.
Reading materials from Alex Jones, Mike Adams, or Anthony Watts will also demonstrate this. It will expose you to a wide range of anti-science ideas and strange theories about why scientists are wrong.
But a science denier doesn’t likes it when they’re called a science denier. They don’t see themselves as a science denier thanks to their biasses and motivated reasoning. It’s not they who are wrong, it’s the majority of experts who are wrong. So of course Lewandowsky’s paper got attacked relentlessly and in strange ways. Which of course gave him, and his colleagues, a lot of material to study.
They used this for the follow-up paper Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation. It’s a fascinating read about a wide range of accusations about scamming, faked data, biases, nefarious intent, the list goes on. Though my personal favourite is the following:
Of course due to this paper very clearly documenting this irrational behaviour and conspiratorial exchanges made it a prime target for climate science deniers. It was just too damaging for them to not attack this paper. So again they started sending in complaints to the authors, the university, the journal, and even the journal that published the first paper (why they did that is beyond me). Carpeting everyone in complaint after complaint and eventually the journal ran for cover.
The journal Frontiers in Psychology eventually retracted the recursive fury paper after the barrage of complaints. Not because of any problems with the paper itself, but because of legal concerns (bolding mine):
When Lewandowsky asked the university if they were willing to host the paper he got the following reply:
During my visit at the AGU 2014 Fall Meeting I interviewed Lewandowsky about these two papers and the kerfuffle that followed. The interview gives a great overview about the research, the results, and what happened. Well worth the watch if you’re interested in a bit more detail.
[0i3UJDd_spU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i3UJDd_spU
Attacks on scientists and their research are very common in the public debate surrounding global warming. The attacks don’t need to make any sense nor is there a need for merit to the raised criticisms. For climate science deniers it’s more about maintaining their ideological mental armour so they can keep their world view in tact.
In this arena two papers by Stephan Lewandowsky stand out by the sheer tenacity and vitriolic nature of the attacks. The paper NASA Faked the Moon Landing − Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science was, and still is, relentlessly attacked for the inconvenient results it contains.
This study found a small, but significant, relation between rejecting climate science and accepting other conspiracy theories. For anyone who spends any time on the internet this will not be a shocking result. Especially if you’ve had any interaction with creationists, a group who also often rejects human caused global warming.
Reading materials from Alex Jones, Mike Adams, or Anthony Watts will also demonstrate this. It will expose you to a wide range of anti-science ideas and strange theories about why scientists are wrong.
But a science denier doesn’t likes it when they’re called a science denier. They don’t see themselves as a science denier thanks to their biasses and motivated reasoning. It’s not they who are wrong, it’s the majority of experts who are wrong. So of course Lewandowsky’s paper got attacked relentlessly and in strange ways. Which of course gave him, and his colleagues, a lot of material to study.
They used this for the follow-up paper Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation. It’s a fascinating read about a wide range of accusations about scamming, faked data, biases, nefarious intent, the list goes on. Though my personal favourite is the following:
Initial attention of the blogosphere also focused on the method reported by LOG12 [NASA Faked the Moon Landing − Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science], which stated: “Links were posted on 8 blogs (with a pro-science science stance but with a diverse audience); a further 5 ‘skeptic’ (or ‘skeptic’-leaning) blogs were approached but none posted the link.” Speculation immediately focused on the identity of the 5 “skeptic” bloggers. Within short order, 25 “skeptical” bloggers had come publicly forward (http://www.webcitation.org/6APs1GdzO) to state that they had not been approached by the researchers. Of those 25 public declarations, 5 were by individuals who were invited to post links to the study by LOG12 in 2010. Two of these bloggers had engaged in correspondence with the research assistant for further clarification.
That is just mind-boggling. Some actually said they were never contacted while they corresponded about this survey for more information. These claims then fed into conspiracy thinking about why no ‘skeptical’ bloggers were contacted. It shows perfectly how strange and irrational the discussions about climate science can get.
Of course due to this paper very clearly documenting this irrational behaviour and conspiratorial exchanges made it a prime target for climate science deniers. It was just too damaging for them to not attack this paper. So again they started sending in complaints to the authors, the university, the journal, and even the journal that published the first paper (why they did that is beyond me). Carpeting everyone in complaint after complaint and eventually the journal ran for cover.
The journal Frontiers in Psychology eventually retracted the recursive fury paper after the barrage of complaints. Not because of any problems with the paper itself, but because of legal concerns (bolding mine):
In the light of a small number of complaints received following publication of the original research article cited above, Frontiers carried out a detailed investigation of the academic, ethical, and legal aspects of the work. This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article. The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article and regret the limitations on academic freedom which can be caused by legal factors.
This is so wrong that this happened. You should never retract a paper that is not flawed or unethical. This paper analyzed public statements by public figures who often try to get as much media exposure as possible. You’re responsible for what you say in public and you can’t complain when those statements are analyzed by academics.
When Lewandowsky asked the university if they were willing to host the paper he got the following reply:
“I’m entirely comfortable with you publishing the paper on the UWA web site. You and the University can easily be sued for any sorts of hurt feelings or confected outrage, and I’d be quite comfortable processing such a phony legal action as an insurance matter.”
— Kimberley Heitman, B.Juris, LLB, MACS, CT, General Counsel, University of Western Australia
You can read the full paper on the University of Western Australia’s website and I commend them for this stance. Academic freedom should not be suppressed like this.— Kimberley Heitman, B.Juris, LLB, MACS, CT, General Counsel, University of Western Australia
During my visit at the AGU 2014 Fall Meeting I interviewed Lewandowsky about these two papers and the kerfuffle that followed. The interview gives a great overview about the research, the results, and what happened. Well worth the watch if you’re interested in a bit more detail.
[0i3UJDd_spU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i3UJDd_spU
GLG
Well-Known Member
Published on Nov 10, 2014
A new report by ODI and Oil Change International has found that G20 governments are supporting exploration for new oil, gas and coal reserves to the tune of $88 billion a year - despite pledging to phase out 'inefficient' fossil fuel subsidies in 2009.
In this video, report author Shelagh Whitley discusses the key findings of the report. Rather than continuing to support exploration for fossil fuels - most which need to be left in the ground to avoid dangerous global warming - she calls on G20 governments to shift their support to the clean energy transition.
For the full report, individual G20 country studies, infographics and more, go to http://odi.org/g20-fossil-fuel-subsidies
[bRiLQKEkGnY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRiLQKEkGnY&list=PL8sELjFjXUp8mOtxvZuGE8Tj3H27ZJ_wh&index=3
A new report by ODI and Oil Change International has found that G20 governments are supporting exploration for new oil, gas and coal reserves to the tune of $88 billion a year - despite pledging to phase out 'inefficient' fossil fuel subsidies in 2009.
In this video, report author Shelagh Whitley discusses the key findings of the report. Rather than continuing to support exploration for fossil fuels - most which need to be left in the ground to avoid dangerous global warming - she calls on G20 governments to shift their support to the clean energy transition.
For the full report, individual G20 country studies, infographics and more, go to http://odi.org/g20-fossil-fuel-subsidies
[bRiLQKEkGnY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRiLQKEkGnY&list=PL8sELjFjXUp8mOtxvZuGE8Tj3H27ZJ_wh&index=3
Last edited by a moderator:
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Peak Wheat! One quarter of wheat production will be lost to extreme climate (or maybe Not)
According to a new study released by Nature Climate Change we are, remarkably, at the very peak of conditions for wheat growth worldwide — and it’s all downhill from here. (What are the odds?) The last 15 years, which have been the “hottest on record” and saw massive human CO2 output, were the peak time for wheat. But all that is about to fall off a cliff if we do … more of the same.
To demonstrate that millions will starve: take projections of extremes from broken climate models, and put them in wheat crop models, and then assume we take no adaptive measures for the first time in human history. Ignore that even the IPCC doesn’t think extreme events are necessarily changing: “Climate models are unable to predict extreme events because they lack spatial and temporal resolution. In addition, there is no clear evidence that sustained or worldwide changes in extreme events have occurred in the past few decades. “
There’s been no increase in drought globally in the last 60 years either. Pouring free fertilizer into the sky, along with better agricultural practices, has produced a global boom in crops (See CO2science for scores of studies on biomass gain, and photosynthesis). But from now on it’s doom, gloom and pain — even though in a warmer world the air will be more humid and the temperatures more stable (the extremes of hot and cold happen under clear sky conditions). Nevermind. Give me another grant.
See this graph? It’s all over, the crash is coming, you better believe it. Nature Climate Change says so:
Source: Worldwatch, VitalSigns.
Climate change may dramatically reduce wheat production, study shows
Science Daily
Climate change may dramatically reduce wheat production, study shows recent study involving Kansas State University researchers finds that in the coming decades at least one-quarter of the world’s wheat production will be lost to extreme weather from climate change if no adaptive measures are taken.
Vara Prasad, professor of crop ecophysiology and director of the USAID Feed the Future Sustainable Intensification Innovation Lab at Kansas State University, is part of a collaborative team that found wheat yields are projected to decrease by 6 percent for each degree Celsius the temperature rises if no measures to adapt to extreme weather fluctuations are taken. Based on the 2012-2013 wheat harvest of 701 million tons worldwide, the resulting temperature increase would result in 42 million tons less produced wheat — or a loss of nearly one-quarter of the current wheat production.
“It’s pretty severe,” Prasad said. “The projected effect of climate change on wheat is more than what has been forecast. That’s challenging because the world will have to at least double our food supply in the next 30 years if we’re going to feed 9.6 billion people.”
Prasad and colleagues published their study, “Rising temperatures reduce global wheat production,” in a recent issue of the scientific journal Nature Climate Change. The study was supported through the Kansas Wheat Commission and the Kansas Wheat Alliance, two organizations seeking ways to increase wheat yield.
For the study, researchers systematically tested 30 wheat crop models against field experiments from around the world that were conducted in areas where the average temperature of the growing season ranged from 15 to 32 degrees Celsius. The models accounted for planting dates, planting rates, temperatures and other crop management factors.
With the models, researchers were able to look at the effects of temperature stresses on wheat and predict future changes based on temperature changes.
Researchers found that the effects from climate change and its increasing temperatures on wheat will be more severe than once projected and are happening sooner than expected. While Prasad said increases in the average temperature are problematic, a bigger challenge is the extreme temperatures that are resulting from climate change.
“Extreme temperature doesn’t only mean heat; it also means cold,” Prasad said. “Simply looking at the average temperature doesn’t really show us anything because it’s the extremities that are more detrimental to crops. Plants can handle gradual changes because they have time to adapt, but an extreme heat wave or cold snap can kill a plant because that adjustment period is often nonexistent.”
Researchers also found that increasing temperatures are shortening the time frame that wheat plants have to mature and produce full heads for harvest, resulting in less grain produced from each plant.
“It’s like having one minute to fill a tall glass with water. Under optimal conditions, we can fill that glass pretty well,” Prasad said. “But now we’re factoring in extreme temperatures that are affecting the growing window and the grain size. So it becomes like trying to fill that same glass, but now we only have 40 seconds to do it and the faucet is running slower.”
Currently, Prasad and colleagues at Kansas State University, in collaboration with the university’s Wheat Genetics Resource Center, are using growth chambers and heats tents to quantify the effects of temperature. The data will help in refining the crop models so that they can be more accurate in predicting wheat responses.
Their work will help scientists develop more robust models that can help farmers globally select more weather-tolerant and resilient wheat varieties based on their location. Additionally, farmers can determine the optimal planting date to avoid stress and minimize possible exposure to extreme weather events, such as heat and cold snaps, during the growing season.
I’m sure better crop models are good, but what farmers need more than anything are climate models that predict the climate.
Oddly enough, if the current temperature plateau were to end and then cool rather than warm, grain production would presumably fall too because the area of arable land would decrease — marginal wheat land in Canada and Russia will be reclaimed by the frosts and shorter seasons. Either way, apparently, wheat production is going down. “We’ll all be rooned”, said Hanrahan.
According to a new study released by Nature Climate Change we are, remarkably, at the very peak of conditions for wheat growth worldwide — and it’s all downhill from here. (What are the odds?) The last 15 years, which have been the “hottest on record” and saw massive human CO2 output, were the peak time for wheat. But all that is about to fall off a cliff if we do … more of the same.
To demonstrate that millions will starve: take projections of extremes from broken climate models, and put them in wheat crop models, and then assume we take no adaptive measures for the first time in human history. Ignore that even the IPCC doesn’t think extreme events are necessarily changing: “Climate models are unable to predict extreme events because they lack spatial and temporal resolution. In addition, there is no clear evidence that sustained or worldwide changes in extreme events have occurred in the past few decades. “
There’s been no increase in drought globally in the last 60 years either. Pouring free fertilizer into the sky, along with better agricultural practices, has produced a global boom in crops (See CO2science for scores of studies on biomass gain, and photosynthesis). But from now on it’s doom, gloom and pain — even though in a warmer world the air will be more humid and the temperatures more stable (the extremes of hot and cold happen under clear sky conditions). Nevermind. Give me another grant.
See this graph? It’s all over, the crash is coming, you better believe it. Nature Climate Change says so:
Source: Worldwatch, VitalSigns.
Climate change may dramatically reduce wheat production, study shows
Science Daily
Climate change may dramatically reduce wheat production, study shows recent study involving Kansas State University researchers finds that in the coming decades at least one-quarter of the world’s wheat production will be lost to extreme weather from climate change if no adaptive measures are taken.
Vara Prasad, professor of crop ecophysiology and director of the USAID Feed the Future Sustainable Intensification Innovation Lab at Kansas State University, is part of a collaborative team that found wheat yields are projected to decrease by 6 percent for each degree Celsius the temperature rises if no measures to adapt to extreme weather fluctuations are taken. Based on the 2012-2013 wheat harvest of 701 million tons worldwide, the resulting temperature increase would result in 42 million tons less produced wheat — or a loss of nearly one-quarter of the current wheat production.
“It’s pretty severe,” Prasad said. “The projected effect of climate change on wheat is more than what has been forecast. That’s challenging because the world will have to at least double our food supply in the next 30 years if we’re going to feed 9.6 billion people.”
Prasad and colleagues published their study, “Rising temperatures reduce global wheat production,” in a recent issue of the scientific journal Nature Climate Change. The study was supported through the Kansas Wheat Commission and the Kansas Wheat Alliance, two organizations seeking ways to increase wheat yield.
For the study, researchers systematically tested 30 wheat crop models against field experiments from around the world that were conducted in areas where the average temperature of the growing season ranged from 15 to 32 degrees Celsius. The models accounted for planting dates, planting rates, temperatures and other crop management factors.
With the models, researchers were able to look at the effects of temperature stresses on wheat and predict future changes based on temperature changes.
Researchers found that the effects from climate change and its increasing temperatures on wheat will be more severe than once projected and are happening sooner than expected. While Prasad said increases in the average temperature are problematic, a bigger challenge is the extreme temperatures that are resulting from climate change.
“Extreme temperature doesn’t only mean heat; it also means cold,” Prasad said. “Simply looking at the average temperature doesn’t really show us anything because it’s the extremities that are more detrimental to crops. Plants can handle gradual changes because they have time to adapt, but an extreme heat wave or cold snap can kill a plant because that adjustment period is often nonexistent.”
Researchers also found that increasing temperatures are shortening the time frame that wheat plants have to mature and produce full heads for harvest, resulting in less grain produced from each plant.
“It’s like having one minute to fill a tall glass with water. Under optimal conditions, we can fill that glass pretty well,” Prasad said. “But now we’re factoring in extreme temperatures that are affecting the growing window and the grain size. So it becomes like trying to fill that same glass, but now we only have 40 seconds to do it and the faucet is running slower.”
Currently, Prasad and colleagues at Kansas State University, in collaboration with the university’s Wheat Genetics Resource Center, are using growth chambers and heats tents to quantify the effects of temperature. The data will help in refining the crop models so that they can be more accurate in predicting wheat responses.
Their work will help scientists develop more robust models that can help farmers globally select more weather-tolerant and resilient wheat varieties based on their location. Additionally, farmers can determine the optimal planting date to avoid stress and minimize possible exposure to extreme weather events, such as heat and cold snaps, during the growing season.
I’m sure better crop models are good, but what farmers need more than anything are climate models that predict the climate.
Oddly enough, if the current temperature plateau were to end and then cool rather than warm, grain production would presumably fall too because the area of arable land would decrease — marginal wheat land in Canada and Russia will be reclaimed by the frosts and shorter seasons. Either way, apparently, wheat production is going down. “We’ll all be rooned”, said Hanrahan.
Attachments
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
People in glass houses, should not throw stones.
Long List Of Warmist Organizations, Scientists Haul In Huge Money From BIG OIL And Heavy Industry!
Browse: Home / 2015 / February / 09 / Long List Of Warmist Organizations, Scientists Haul In Huge Money From BIG OIL And Heavy Industry!
Reader Jimbo left a comment which I’ve upgraded to a post.
Below he presents a list of 25 examples where climate alarmism organizations and scientists were more than happy to take in big money from Big Oil and industry. Even Michael Mann (Example no. 19) benefitted from the Koch Brothers!
============================
By reader Jimbo
We are often called fossil fuel funded climate change deniers. So you can imagine my shock when I came across these past and present takers of fossil fuel money. Imagine if skeptics hauled in such money.
1. Climate Research Unit (CRU)
History
From the late 1970s through to the collapse of oil prices in the late 1980s, CRU received a series of contracts from BP to provide data and advice concerning their exploration operations in the Arctic marginal seas. Working closely with BP’s Cold Regions Group, CRU staff developed a set of detailed sea-ice atlases,
This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
…British Petroleum…Greenpeace International…Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates…Sultanate of Oman…Shell……
2. Sierra Club
TIME – 2 February 2012
Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry
TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking…”
3. Delhi Sustainable Development Summit
[Founded by Teri under Dr. Rajendra Pachauri chairman of the IPCC]
2011: Star Partner – Rockefeller Foundation
2007: Partners – BP
2006: Co-Associates – NTPC [coal and gas power generation] | Function Hosts – BP
2005: Associate – Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, India | Co-Associate Shell
4. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project
Berkeley Earth team members include: Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director……Steven Mosher, Scientist…
Financial Support First Phase (2010)
…Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…
Second Phase (2011)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…
Third Phase (2012)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…Anonymous Foundation ($250,000)…
Fourth Phase (2013)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($100,000)…
5. 350.org
350.org caught up in fossil fuel ‘divestment’ hypocrisy
[Rockefellers Brothers Fund] RBF has given 350.org $800,000 in recent years and almost $2 million to the 1Sky Education Fund, now part of 350.org, according to foundation records.”
6. Union of Concerned Scientists
The 2013 Annual Report PDF
UCS thanks the following companies that matched members’ gifts at a level of $1,000 or more….Chevron Corporation…”
Annual Report 2002 PDF
The Union of Concerned Scientists gratefully acknowledges the following individuals and foundations for their generous contributions of at least $500 during our fiscal year 2002 (October 1, 2001–September 30, 2002)…”
Friends of UCS
The Friends of UCS provide substantial support for the ongoing work of the organization…Larry Rockefeller…Matching Gift Companies…BP Amoco Matching Gift Program…Philip Morris Companies, Inc…”
7. University of California, Berkeley
CalCAP, Cal Climate Action Partnership
What is CalCAP?
The Cal Climate Action Partnership (CalCAP) is a collaboration of faculty, administration, staff, and students working to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at UC Berkeley.”
8. University of California, Berkeley
UC Berkeley News – 1 February 2007
BP selects UC Berkeley to lead $500 million energy research consortium with partners Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, University of Illinois.”
9. Climate Institute
About Us
The Climate Institute has been in a unique position to inform key decision-makers, heighten international awareness of climate change, and identify practical ways of achieving significant emissions reductions…
Donors
American Gas Foundation…BP…NASA….PG&E Corporation [natural gas & electricity]…Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Shell Foundation…The Rockefeller Foundation…UNDP, UNEP…”
10. EcoLiving
About
…EcoLiving provides events and hands-on workshops to teach Albertans about ways to reduce our collective ecological footprint, create more sustainable and energy efficient buildings, and share information about local environmental initiatives and services…”
Sponsors
2008 Sponsors: …ConocoPhillips…Shell 2009 Sponsors: …ConocoPhillips Canada…2013 Sponsors:…Shell FuellingChange…”
11. Nature Conservancy
Climate Change Threats and Impacts
Climate change is already beginning to transform life on Earth. Around the globe, seasons are shifting, temperatures are climbing and sea levels are rising…… If we don’t act now, climate change will rapidly alter the lands and waters we all depend upon for survival, leaving our children and grandchildren with a very different world…”
12. Washington Post – 24 May 2010
…What De Leon didn’t know was that the Nature Conservancy lists BP as one of its business partners. The Conservancy also has given BP a seat on its International Leadership Council and has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years….The Conservancy, already scrambling to shield oyster beds from the spill, now faces a different problem: a potential backlash…”
13. America’s WETLAND Foundation
Restore-Adapt-Mitigate: Responding To Climate Change Through Coastal Habitat Restoration”
PDF
Coastal habitats are being subjected to a range of stresses from climate change; many of these stresses are predicted to increase over the next century The most significant effects are likely to be from sea-level rise, increased storm and wave intensity, temperature increases, carbon dioxide concentration increases, and changes in precipitation that will alter freshwater delivery…”
Sponsors
World Sponsor: Shell
Sustainability Sponsors: Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil
National Sponsors: British Petroleum”
14. Green Energy Futures
About Us
Green Energy Futures is a multi-media storytelling project that is documenting the clean energy revolution that’s already underway. It tells the stories of green energy pioneers who are moving forward in their homes, businesses and communities.
Gold Sponsor: Shell”
15. World Resources Institute
Climate
WRI engages businesses, policymakers, and civil society at the local, national, and international levels to advance transformative solutions that mitigate climate change and help communities adapt to its impacts.
ACKNOWLEDGING OUR DONORS (January 1, 2011 – August 1, 2012 PDF 5MB
…Shell and Shell Foundation…ConocoPhillips Company…”
16. Purdue Solar
Navitas Takes 1st at SEMA 2013
Last week, Purdue Solar Racing took home first place in the Battery Electric division at the 2013 Shell Eco-marathon. The winning run reached an efficiency of 78.1 m/kWh (a miles per gallon equivalency of approximate 2,630MPGe)…”
17. AGU Fall Meeting
9-13 December 2013
Thank You to Our Sponsors
The AGU would like to take the time to thank all of our generous sponsors who support the
2013 Fall Meeting and the events at the meeting.
ExxonMobil…….BP, Chevron…..Mineralogical Society of America…”
18. Science Museum – Atmosphere
About our funders
…exploring climate science gallery and the three-year Climate Changing… programme. Through these ground-breaking projects we invite all our visitors to deepen their understanding of the science behind our changing climate.
We believe that working together with such a wide range of sectors is something that we’ll all need to be able to do in our climate-changing world….
Principal Sponsors: Shell…Siemens…”
19. Dr. Michael Mann
WUWT – October 15, 2013
…it is enlightening to learn that his current employer, Penn State, gets funds from Koch, and so does where Dr. Mann did his thesis from, the University of Virginia. Those darn facts, they are stubborn things. See the list that follows…”
Long List Of Warmist Organizations, Scientists Haul In Huge Money From BIG OIL And Heavy Industry!
Browse: Home / 2015 / February / 09 / Long List Of Warmist Organizations, Scientists Haul In Huge Money From BIG OIL And Heavy Industry!
Reader Jimbo left a comment which I’ve upgraded to a post.
Below he presents a list of 25 examples where climate alarmism organizations and scientists were more than happy to take in big money from Big Oil and industry. Even Michael Mann (Example no. 19) benefitted from the Koch Brothers!
============================
By reader Jimbo
We are often called fossil fuel funded climate change deniers. So you can imagine my shock when I came across these past and present takers of fossil fuel money. Imagine if skeptics hauled in such money.
1. Climate Research Unit (CRU)
History
From the late 1970s through to the collapse of oil prices in the late 1980s, CRU received a series of contracts from BP to provide data and advice concerning their exploration operations in the Arctic marginal seas. Working closely with BP’s Cold Regions Group, CRU staff developed a set of detailed sea-ice atlases,
This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
…British Petroleum…Greenpeace International…Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates…Sultanate of Oman…Shell……
2. Sierra Club
TIME – 2 February 2012
Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry
TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking…”
3. Delhi Sustainable Development Summit
[Founded by Teri under Dr. Rajendra Pachauri chairman of the IPCC]
2011: Star Partner – Rockefeller Foundation
2007: Partners – BP
2006: Co-Associates – NTPC [coal and gas power generation] | Function Hosts – BP
2005: Associate – Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, India | Co-Associate Shell
4. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project
Berkeley Earth team members include: Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director……Steven Mosher, Scientist…
Financial Support First Phase (2010)
…Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…
Second Phase (2011)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…
Third Phase (2012)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…Anonymous Foundation ($250,000)…
Fourth Phase (2013)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($100,000)…
5. 350.org
350.org caught up in fossil fuel ‘divestment’ hypocrisy
[Rockefellers Brothers Fund] RBF has given 350.org $800,000 in recent years and almost $2 million to the 1Sky Education Fund, now part of 350.org, according to foundation records.”
6. Union of Concerned Scientists
The 2013 Annual Report PDF
UCS thanks the following companies that matched members’ gifts at a level of $1,000 or more….Chevron Corporation…”
Annual Report 2002 PDF
The Union of Concerned Scientists gratefully acknowledges the following individuals and foundations for their generous contributions of at least $500 during our fiscal year 2002 (October 1, 2001–September 30, 2002)…”
Friends of UCS
The Friends of UCS provide substantial support for the ongoing work of the organization…Larry Rockefeller…Matching Gift Companies…BP Amoco Matching Gift Program…Philip Morris Companies, Inc…”
7. University of California, Berkeley
CalCAP, Cal Climate Action Partnership
What is CalCAP?
The Cal Climate Action Partnership (CalCAP) is a collaboration of faculty, administration, staff, and students working to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at UC Berkeley.”
8. University of California, Berkeley
UC Berkeley News – 1 February 2007
BP selects UC Berkeley to lead $500 million energy research consortium with partners Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, University of Illinois.”
9. Climate Institute
About Us
The Climate Institute has been in a unique position to inform key decision-makers, heighten international awareness of climate change, and identify practical ways of achieving significant emissions reductions…
Donors
American Gas Foundation…BP…NASA….PG&E Corporation [natural gas & electricity]…Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Shell Foundation…The Rockefeller Foundation…UNDP, UNEP…”
10. EcoLiving
About
…EcoLiving provides events and hands-on workshops to teach Albertans about ways to reduce our collective ecological footprint, create more sustainable and energy efficient buildings, and share information about local environmental initiatives and services…”
Sponsors
2008 Sponsors: …ConocoPhillips…Shell 2009 Sponsors: …ConocoPhillips Canada…2013 Sponsors:…Shell FuellingChange…”
11. Nature Conservancy
Climate Change Threats and Impacts
Climate change is already beginning to transform life on Earth. Around the globe, seasons are shifting, temperatures are climbing and sea levels are rising…… If we don’t act now, climate change will rapidly alter the lands and waters we all depend upon for survival, leaving our children and grandchildren with a very different world…”
12. Washington Post – 24 May 2010
…What De Leon didn’t know was that the Nature Conservancy lists BP as one of its business partners. The Conservancy also has given BP a seat on its International Leadership Council and has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years….The Conservancy, already scrambling to shield oyster beds from the spill, now faces a different problem: a potential backlash…”
13. America’s WETLAND Foundation
Restore-Adapt-Mitigate: Responding To Climate Change Through Coastal Habitat Restoration”
Coastal habitats are being subjected to a range of stresses from climate change; many of these stresses are predicted to increase over the next century The most significant effects are likely to be from sea-level rise, increased storm and wave intensity, temperature increases, carbon dioxide concentration increases, and changes in precipitation that will alter freshwater delivery…”
Sponsors
World Sponsor: Shell
Sustainability Sponsors: Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil
National Sponsors: British Petroleum”
14. Green Energy Futures
About Us
Green Energy Futures is a multi-media storytelling project that is documenting the clean energy revolution that’s already underway. It tells the stories of green energy pioneers who are moving forward in their homes, businesses and communities.
Gold Sponsor: Shell”
15. World Resources Institute
Climate
WRI engages businesses, policymakers, and civil society at the local, national, and international levels to advance transformative solutions that mitigate climate change and help communities adapt to its impacts.
ACKNOWLEDGING OUR DONORS (January 1, 2011 – August 1, 2012 PDF 5MB
…Shell and Shell Foundation…ConocoPhillips Company…”
16. Purdue Solar
Navitas Takes 1st at SEMA 2013
Last week, Purdue Solar Racing took home first place in the Battery Electric division at the 2013 Shell Eco-marathon. The winning run reached an efficiency of 78.1 m/kWh (a miles per gallon equivalency of approximate 2,630MPGe)…”
17. AGU Fall Meeting
9-13 December 2013
Thank You to Our Sponsors
The AGU would like to take the time to thank all of our generous sponsors who support the
2013 Fall Meeting and the events at the meeting.
ExxonMobil…….BP, Chevron…..Mineralogical Society of America…”
18. Science Museum – Atmosphere
About our funders
…exploring climate science gallery and the three-year Climate Changing… programme. Through these ground-breaking projects we invite all our visitors to deepen their understanding of the science behind our changing climate.
We believe that working together with such a wide range of sectors is something that we’ll all need to be able to do in our climate-changing world….
Principal Sponsors: Shell…Siemens…”
19. Dr. Michael Mann
WUWT – October 15, 2013
…it is enlightening to learn that his current employer, Penn State, gets funds from Koch, and so does where Dr. Mann did his thesis from, the University of Virginia. Those darn facts, they are stubborn things. See the list that follows…”
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
People in glass houses, should not throw stones.
Long List Of Warmist Organizations, Scientists Haul In Huge Money From BIG OIL And Heavy Industry!
Browse: Home / 2015 / February / 09 / Long List Of Warmist Organizations, Scientists Haul In Huge Money From BIG OIL And Heavy Industry!
Reader Jimbo left a comment which I’ve upgraded to a post.
Below he presents a list of 25 examples where climate alarmism organizations and scientists were more than happy to take in big money from Big Oil and industry. Even Michael Mann (Example no. 19) benefitted from the Koch Brothers!
============================
By reader Jimbo
We are often called fossil fuel funded climate change deniers. So you can imagine my shock when I came across these past and present takers of fossil fuel money. Imagine if skeptics hauled in such money.
1. Climate Research Unit (CRU)
History
From the late 1970s through to the collapse of oil prices in the late 1980s, CRU received a series of contracts from BP to provide data and advice concerning their exploration operations in the Arctic marginal seas. Working closely with BP’s Cold Regions Group, CRU staff developed a set of detailed sea-ice atlases,
This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
…British Petroleum…Greenpeace International…Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates…Sultanate of Oman…Shell……
2. Sierra Club
TIME – 2 February 2012
Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry
TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking…”
3. Delhi Sustainable Development Summit
[Founded by Teri under Dr. Rajendra Pachauri chairman of the IPCC]
2011: Star Partner – Rockefeller Foundation
2007: Partners – BP
2006: Co-Associates – NTPC [coal and gas power generation] | Function Hosts – BP
2005: Associate – Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, India | Co-Associate Shell
4. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project
Berkeley Earth team members include: Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director……Steven Mosher, Scientist…
Financial Support First Phase (2010)
…Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…
Second Phase (2011)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…
Third Phase (2012)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…Anonymous Foundation ($250,000)…
Fourth Phase (2013)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($100,000)…
5. 350.org
350.org caught up in fossil fuel ‘divestment’ hypocrisy
[Rockefellers Brothers Fund] RBF has given 350.org $800,000 in recent years and almost $2 million to the 1Sky Education Fund, now part of 350.org, according to foundation records.”
6. Union of Concerned Scientists
The 2013 Annual Report PDF
UCS thanks the following companies that matched members’ gifts at a level of $1,000 or more….Chevron Corporation…”
Annual Report 2002 PDF
The Union of Concerned Scientists gratefully acknowledges the following individuals and foundations for their generous contributions of at least $500 during our fiscal year 2002 (October 1, 2001–September 30, 2002)…”
Friends of UCS
The Friends of UCS provide substantial support for the ongoing work of the organization…Larry Rockefeller…Matching Gift Companies…BP Amoco Matching Gift Program…Philip Morris Companies, Inc…”
7. University of California, Berkeley
CalCAP, Cal Climate Action Partnership
What is CalCAP?
The Cal Climate Action Partnership (CalCAP) is a collaboration of faculty, administration, staff, and students working to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at UC Berkeley.”
8. University of California, Berkeley
UC Berkeley News – 1 February 2007
BP selects UC Berkeley to lead $500 million energy research consortium with partners Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, University of Illinois.”
9. Climate Institute
About Us
The Climate Institute has been in a unique position to inform key decision-makers, heighten international awareness of climate change, and identify practical ways of achieving significant emissions reductions…
Donors
American Gas Foundation…BP…NASA….PG&E Corporation [natural gas & electricity]…Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Shell Foundation…The Rockefeller Foundation…UNDP, UNEP…”
10. EcoLiving
About
…EcoLiving provides events and hands-on workshops to teach Albertans about ways to reduce our collective ecological footprint, create more sustainable and energy efficient buildings, and share information about local environmental initiatives and services…”
Sponsors
2008 Sponsors: …ConocoPhillips…Shell 2009 Sponsors: …ConocoPhillips Canada…2013 Sponsors:…Shell FuellingChange…”
11. Nature Conservancy
Climate Change Threats and Impacts
Climate change is already beginning to transform life on Earth. Around the globe, seasons are shifting, temperatures are climbing and sea levels are rising…… If we don’t act now, climate change will rapidly alter the lands and waters we all depend upon for survival, leaving our children and grandchildren with a very different world…”
12. Washington Post – 24 May 2010
…What De Leon didn’t know was that the Nature Conservancy lists BP as one of its business partners. The Conservancy also has given BP a seat on its International Leadership Council and has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years….The Conservancy, already scrambling to shield oyster beds from the spill, now faces a different problem: a potential backlash…”
13. America’s WETLAND Foundation
Restore-Adapt-Mitigate: Responding To Climate Change Through Coastal Habitat Restoration”
PDF
Coastal habitats are being subjected to a range of stresses from climate change; many of these stresses are predicted to increase over the next century The most significant effects are likely to be from sea-level rise, increased storm and wave intensity, temperature increases, carbon dioxide concentration increases, and changes in precipitation that will alter freshwater delivery…”
Sponsors
World Sponsor: Shell
Sustainability Sponsors: Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil
National Sponsors: British Petroleum”
14. Green Energy Futures
About Us
Green Energy Futures is a multi-media storytelling project that is documenting the clean energy revolution that’s already underway. It tells the stories of green energy pioneers who are moving forward in their homes, businesses and communities.
Gold Sponsor: Shell”
15. World Resources Institute
Climate
WRI engages businesses, policymakers, and civil society at the local, national, and international levels to advance transformative solutions that mitigate climate change and help communities adapt to its impacts.
ACKNOWLEDGING OUR DONORS (January 1, 2011 – August 1, 2012 PDF 5MB
…Shell and Shell Foundation…ConocoPhillips Company…”
16. Purdue Solar
Navitas Takes 1st at SEMA 2013
Last week, Purdue Solar Racing took home first place in the Battery Electric division at the 2013 Shell Eco-marathon. The winning run reached an efficiency of 78.1 m/kWh (a miles per gallon equivalency of approximate 2,630MPGe)…”
17. AGU Fall Meeting
9-13 December 2013
Thank You to Our Sponsors
The AGU would like to take the time to thank all of our generous sponsors who support the
2013 Fall Meeting and the events at the meeting.
ExxonMobil…….BP, Chevron…..Mineralogical Society of America…”
18. Science Museum – Atmosphere
About our funders
…exploring climate science gallery and the three-year Climate Changing… programme. Through these ground-breaking projects we invite all our visitors to deepen their understanding of the science behind our changing climate.
We believe that working together with such a wide range of sectors is something that we’ll all need to be able to do in our climate-changing world….
Principal Sponsors: Shell…Siemens…”
19. Dr. Michael Mann
WUWT – October 15, 2013
…it is enlightening to learn that his current employer, Penn State, gets funds from Koch, and so does where Dr. Mann did his thesis from, the University of Virginia. Those darn facts, they are stubborn things. See the list that follows…”
Long List Of Warmist Organizations, Scientists Haul In Huge Money From BIG OIL And Heavy Industry!
Browse: Home / 2015 / February / 09 / Long List Of Warmist Organizations, Scientists Haul In Huge Money From BIG OIL And Heavy Industry!
Reader Jimbo left a comment which I’ve upgraded to a post.
Below he presents a list of 25 examples where climate alarmism organizations and scientists were more than happy to take in big money from Big Oil and industry. Even Michael Mann (Example no. 19) benefitted from the Koch Brothers!
============================
By reader Jimbo
We are often called fossil fuel funded climate change deniers. So you can imagine my shock when I came across these past and present takers of fossil fuel money. Imagine if skeptics hauled in such money.
1. Climate Research Unit (CRU)
History
From the late 1970s through to the collapse of oil prices in the late 1980s, CRU received a series of contracts from BP to provide data and advice concerning their exploration operations in the Arctic marginal seas. Working closely with BP’s Cold Regions Group, CRU staff developed a set of detailed sea-ice atlases,
This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
…British Petroleum…Greenpeace International…Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates…Sultanate of Oman…Shell……
2. Sierra Club
TIME – 2 February 2012
Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry
TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking…”
3. Delhi Sustainable Development Summit
[Founded by Teri under Dr. Rajendra Pachauri chairman of the IPCC]
2011: Star Partner – Rockefeller Foundation
2007: Partners – BP
2006: Co-Associates – NTPC [coal and gas power generation] | Function Hosts – BP
2005: Associate – Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, India | Co-Associate Shell
4. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project
Berkeley Earth team members include: Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director……Steven Mosher, Scientist…
Financial Support First Phase (2010)
…Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…
Second Phase (2011)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…
Third Phase (2012)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…Anonymous Foundation ($250,000)…
Fourth Phase (2013)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($100,000)…
5. 350.org
350.org caught up in fossil fuel ‘divestment’ hypocrisy
[Rockefellers Brothers Fund] RBF has given 350.org $800,000 in recent years and almost $2 million to the 1Sky Education Fund, now part of 350.org, according to foundation records.”
6. Union of Concerned Scientists
The 2013 Annual Report PDF
UCS thanks the following companies that matched members’ gifts at a level of $1,000 or more….Chevron Corporation…”
Annual Report 2002 PDF
The Union of Concerned Scientists gratefully acknowledges the following individuals and foundations for their generous contributions of at least $500 during our fiscal year 2002 (October 1, 2001–September 30, 2002)…”
Friends of UCS
The Friends of UCS provide substantial support for the ongoing work of the organization…Larry Rockefeller…Matching Gift Companies…BP Amoco Matching Gift Program…Philip Morris Companies, Inc…”
7. University of California, Berkeley
CalCAP, Cal Climate Action Partnership
What is CalCAP?
The Cal Climate Action Partnership (CalCAP) is a collaboration of faculty, administration, staff, and students working to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at UC Berkeley.”
8. University of California, Berkeley
UC Berkeley News – 1 February 2007
BP selects UC Berkeley to lead $500 million energy research consortium with partners Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, University of Illinois.”
9. Climate Institute
About Us
The Climate Institute has been in a unique position to inform key decision-makers, heighten international awareness of climate change, and identify practical ways of achieving significant emissions reductions…
Donors
American Gas Foundation…BP…NASA….PG&E Corporation [natural gas & electricity]…Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Shell Foundation…The Rockefeller Foundation…UNDP, UNEP…”
10. EcoLiving
About
…EcoLiving provides events and hands-on workshops to teach Albertans about ways to reduce our collective ecological footprint, create more sustainable and energy efficient buildings, and share information about local environmental initiatives and services…”
Sponsors
2008 Sponsors: …ConocoPhillips…Shell 2009 Sponsors: …ConocoPhillips Canada…2013 Sponsors:…Shell FuellingChange…”
11. Nature Conservancy
Climate Change Threats and Impacts
Climate change is already beginning to transform life on Earth. Around the globe, seasons are shifting, temperatures are climbing and sea levels are rising…… If we don’t act now, climate change will rapidly alter the lands and waters we all depend upon for survival, leaving our children and grandchildren with a very different world…”
12. Washington Post – 24 May 2010
…What De Leon didn’t know was that the Nature Conservancy lists BP as one of its business partners. The Conservancy also has given BP a seat on its International Leadership Council and has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years….The Conservancy, already scrambling to shield oyster beds from the spill, now faces a different problem: a potential backlash…”
13. America’s WETLAND Foundation
Restore-Adapt-Mitigate: Responding To Climate Change Through Coastal Habitat Restoration”
Coastal habitats are being subjected to a range of stresses from climate change; many of these stresses are predicted to increase over the next century The most significant effects are likely to be from sea-level rise, increased storm and wave intensity, temperature increases, carbon dioxide concentration increases, and changes in precipitation that will alter freshwater delivery…”
Sponsors
World Sponsor: Shell
Sustainability Sponsors: Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil
National Sponsors: British Petroleum”
14. Green Energy Futures
About Us
Green Energy Futures is a multi-media storytelling project that is documenting the clean energy revolution that’s already underway. It tells the stories of green energy pioneers who are moving forward in their homes, businesses and communities.
Gold Sponsor: Shell”
15. World Resources Institute
Climate
WRI engages businesses, policymakers, and civil society at the local, national, and international levels to advance transformative solutions that mitigate climate change and help communities adapt to its impacts.
ACKNOWLEDGING OUR DONORS (January 1, 2011 – August 1, 2012 PDF 5MB
…Shell and Shell Foundation…ConocoPhillips Company…”
16. Purdue Solar
Navitas Takes 1st at SEMA 2013
Last week, Purdue Solar Racing took home first place in the Battery Electric division at the 2013 Shell Eco-marathon. The winning run reached an efficiency of 78.1 m/kWh (a miles per gallon equivalency of approximate 2,630MPGe)…”
17. AGU Fall Meeting
9-13 December 2013
Thank You to Our Sponsors
The AGU would like to take the time to thank all of our generous sponsors who support the
2013 Fall Meeting and the events at the meeting.
ExxonMobil…….BP, Chevron…..Mineralogical Society of America…”
18. Science Museum – Atmosphere
About our funders
…exploring climate science gallery and the three-year Climate Changing… programme. Through these ground-breaking projects we invite all our visitors to deepen their understanding of the science behind our changing climate.
We believe that working together with such a wide range of sectors is something that we’ll all need to be able to do in our climate-changing world….
Principal Sponsors: Shell…Siemens…”
19. Dr. Michael Mann
WUWT – October 15, 2013
…it is enlightening to learn that his current employer, Penn State, gets funds from Koch, and so does where Dr. Mann did his thesis from, the University of Virginia. Those darn facts, they are stubborn things. See the list that follows…”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150217131234.htm
Humans altering Adriatic ecosystems more than nature, study shows
Date: February 17, 2015
Source: University of Florida
Summary: The ecosystems of the Adriatic Sea have weathered natural climate shifts for 125,000 years, but humans could be rapidly altering this historically stable biodiversity hot spot, a new study shows.
These shellfish species from the northern Adriatic Sea were also found in sediments, providing a record of mollusks that thrived in the region 125,000 years ago.
Credit: Photo courtesy of Paolo Ferrieri and Daniele Scarponi, University of Bologna
The ecosystems of the Adriatic Sea have weathered natural climate shifts for 125,000 years, but humans could be rapidly altering this historically stable biodiversity hot spot, a University of Florida study says.
The study details a major shift in bottom-dwelling species in Italy's Po Basin, a region south of Venice known for its ecologically and commercially important shellfish as well as its tourism industry.
"The fossil record suggests that human activities can alter even those ecosystems that have been immune to major changes naturally occurring on our planet," said the study's lead author, Michal Kowalewski, the Thompson Chair of Invertebrate Paleontology at the Florida Museum of Natural History on the UF campus.
"We may be witnessing a permanent shift," Kowalewski said. "This restructuring could have lasting consequences for regional biodiversity, including the overall health of the broader marine ecosystems of the Adriatic."
Mollusks preserve well in the fossil record and tend to be sensitive to human-caused environmental change, making them a good indicator of marine ecosystem health. The study, appearing online this week in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, documents rapidly changing marine communities in the northern Adriatic, one of Europe's most highly developed industrial and agricultural areas. Researchers tracked changes in shellfish communities by examining a collection of more than 100,000 fossil specimens from geological cores drilled in the region. They then compared the fossil data with surveys of present-day marine ecosystems conducted in the last four decades of the 20th century. The fossil record shows 125,000 years ago the Adriatic region's climate and sea level were similar to today. However, the authors found significant ecosystem changes in the most recent centuries, including a decline in seven out of the 10 historically dominant mollusk species.
The findings echo those of previous studies on Caribbean reef communities.
"The changes found by the study researchers are alarming, but there's reason to believe that other areas have been even more profoundly affected by the effects of pollution, habitat disturbance, lack of oxygen and climate change," said Steven Holland, a University of Georgia paleontologist not involved in the study. "This is a clear fingerprint of the effects of humans."
Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided by University of Florida. The original article was written by Stephenie Livingston. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Journal Reference:
1.M. Kowalewski, J. M. Wittmer, T. A. Dexter, A. Amorosi, D. Scarponi. Differential responses of marine communities to natural and anthropogenic changes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2015; 282 (1803): 20142990 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2014.2990
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2990
Humans altering Adriatic ecosystems more than nature, study shows
Date: February 17, 2015
Source: University of Florida
Summary: The ecosystems of the Adriatic Sea have weathered natural climate shifts for 125,000 years, but humans could be rapidly altering this historically stable biodiversity hot spot, a new study shows.
These shellfish species from the northern Adriatic Sea were also found in sediments, providing a record of mollusks that thrived in the region 125,000 years ago.
Credit: Photo courtesy of Paolo Ferrieri and Daniele Scarponi, University of Bologna
The ecosystems of the Adriatic Sea have weathered natural climate shifts for 125,000 years, but humans could be rapidly altering this historically stable biodiversity hot spot, a University of Florida study says.
The study details a major shift in bottom-dwelling species in Italy's Po Basin, a region south of Venice known for its ecologically and commercially important shellfish as well as its tourism industry.
"The fossil record suggests that human activities can alter even those ecosystems that have been immune to major changes naturally occurring on our planet," said the study's lead author, Michal Kowalewski, the Thompson Chair of Invertebrate Paleontology at the Florida Museum of Natural History on the UF campus.
"We may be witnessing a permanent shift," Kowalewski said. "This restructuring could have lasting consequences for regional biodiversity, including the overall health of the broader marine ecosystems of the Adriatic."
Mollusks preserve well in the fossil record and tend to be sensitive to human-caused environmental change, making them a good indicator of marine ecosystem health. The study, appearing online this week in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, documents rapidly changing marine communities in the northern Adriatic, one of Europe's most highly developed industrial and agricultural areas. Researchers tracked changes in shellfish communities by examining a collection of more than 100,000 fossil specimens from geological cores drilled in the region. They then compared the fossil data with surveys of present-day marine ecosystems conducted in the last four decades of the 20th century. The fossil record shows 125,000 years ago the Adriatic region's climate and sea level were similar to today. However, the authors found significant ecosystem changes in the most recent centuries, including a decline in seven out of the 10 historically dominant mollusk species.
The findings echo those of previous studies on Caribbean reef communities.
"The changes found by the study researchers are alarming, but there's reason to believe that other areas have been even more profoundly affected by the effects of pollution, habitat disturbance, lack of oxygen and climate change," said Steven Holland, a University of Georgia paleontologist not involved in the study. "This is a clear fingerprint of the effects of humans."
Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided by University of Florida. The original article was written by Stephenie Livingston. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Journal Reference:
1.M. Kowalewski, J. M. Wittmer, T. A. Dexter, A. Amorosi, D. Scarponi. Differential responses of marine communities to natural and anthropogenic changes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2015; 282 (1803): 20142990 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2014.2990
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2990
Last edited by a moderator:
GLG
Well-Known Member
I can think of 775,000 reasons a year why he has this view.
http://207.153.189.83/EINS/261214521/261214521_2012_09de5643.PDF
Not bad for a scientist, a political scientist that is.
And if you paid me that much i would convince you that your pants were on fire.
You would think that this multi-million dollar think tank would have a swank office but not so.
I guess that a rising tide floats all yachts and he is helping the neighborhood.
This is what that address looks like on Google street view:
Starting to see a trend OBD?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
