IPCC Conspiracy

Rather fortunately, the creation of a false scientific consensus is not a criminal act or the reported meetings described herein would nicely meet the needs of a criminal conspiracy.

I continue to be appalled by ongoing revelations about the IPCC process which clearly degenerated into an exercise of a targeted public relations program in support of Kyoto and as far removed from the standards of scientific discourse as it is possible to get.

Imagine the fate of a gold mining engineer who saw fit to alter data to support the market price of the stock.  In fact there is no need to.  They always get caught if they have any funding success and are run out of the business. 

The actual manipulation seems to be under the control of a few who largely suppressed dissent.  This is still damaging to the reputations of folks who went along.  Perhaps we have seen the end of every stray paper in unrelated fields making the gratuitous claim that it is all caused by global warming.

It is not really making the press, but more and more participants in the IPCC report are taking the moral high ground and demanding reform. It is hard to see how the present chairman can remain.

See www.ClimateDepot.com for latest.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/5064/Manufactured-Science-Another-IPCC-Scientist-Reveals-How-UN-Scientists-talked-about-trying-to-make-IPCC-report-so-dramatic-that-US-would-just-have-to-sign-Kyoto-Protocol

Manufactured 'Science': Another IPCC Scientist Reveals How UN Scientists talked about 'trying to make IPCC report so dramatic that US would just have to sign Kyoto Protocol'  

Tuesday, January 26, 2010 - By Marc Morano  –  Climate Depot

[Also see: Shock Revelation: UN scientist admits fake data was used in IPCC report 'purely to put political pressure on world leaders']

Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

"I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol," Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. - (For more on UN scientists turning on the UN years ago, see Climate Depot's full reporthere. )

Christy has since proposed major reforms and changes to the way the UN IPCC report is produced. Christy has rejected the UN approach that produces "a document designed for uniformity and consensus." Christy presented his views at a UN meeting in 2009. The IPCC needs "an alternative view section written by well-credentialed climate scientists is needed," Christy said. "If not, why not? What is there to fear? In a scientific area as uncertain as climate, the opinions of all are required," he added.

'The reception to my comments was especially cold'

[The following is excerpted from Andrew Revkin's January 26, 2009 New York Times blog Dot Earth. For full article go here.]

Excerpt: Last March, more than 100 past [UN IPCC] lead authors of report chapters met in Hawaii to chart next steps for the panel's inquiries. One presenter there was John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who has focused on using satellites to chart global temperatures. He was a lead author of a section of the third climate report, in 2001, but is best known these days as a critic of the more heated warnings that climate is already unraveling under the buildup of heat-trapping gases.

At the Hawaii meeting, he gave a presentation proposing that future reports contain a section providing the views of credentialed scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature whose views on particular points differ from the consensus. He provided both his poster and summary of his three-minute talk. In an e-mail message to me, he described the reaction this way (L.A. is short for lead author; AR5 is shorthand for the next report, coming in 2013-14.):

Christy: “The reception to my comments was especially cold ... not one supporter, though a couple of scientists did say I had a “lot of guts” to stand up and say what I said before 140 L.A.s. I was (and still am) calling for the AR5 to be a more open scientific assessment in which those of us who are well-credentialed and have evidence for low climate sensitivity (observational and theoretical) be given room to explain this. We should have the same standards of review authority too. When a subject is excruciatingly complicated, like climate, we see that opinion, overstatement, and appeal-to-authority tend to reign as those of a like-mind essentially take control in their self-constructed echo-chamber. The world needs to see all sides of the evidence. We in the climate business need to understand humility, not pride, when looking at a million degrees-of-freedom problem. It's just fine to say, 'We don't know,' when that is the truth of the matter.”

I (Revkin) also asked Christy, “Do you see a way forward for this enterprise (presuming you see these recent issues as serious problems but not a fatal indictment)?”

Christy said: “I think people would read AR5 if it were a true scientific assessment, complete with controversies [described] by the experts themselves. Policymakers will find it uncomfortable, because the simple fact remains that our ignorance of the climate system is enormous. Otherwise, it will be a repeat of what we are now seeing (and what many folks like me knew years ago), that the process has morphed into an agenda-approving exercise.”

To view Christy's poster see here.

Christy's full written paper to UN IPCC.

Can the IPCC Allow a Section of Alternative Views Authored by Equally Credentialed Climate Scientists? - March 2009 - Presented to UN IPCC Scientists

By Dr. John R. Christy - University of Alabama in Huntsville

I want you all to understand this: No one is holding a gun to my head and no one is paying me money either above or under the table to arrive at the conclusions I (and others) have come to.

I propose that the IPCC allow for well credentialed climate scientists to craft a chapter on an alternative view presenting evidence for low climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases than has been the IPCC's recent message – all based on published information. In other words, I am proposing that the AR5 be a true Scientific Assessment, not a document designed for uniformity and consensus. In a scientific area as uncertain as climate, the opinions of all are required. Three quick examples are on the poster.

First, the iconic mean surface temperature is a poor proxy for detecting greenhouse gas influences for reasons shown. And, this metric is not well-observed in any case.

Secondly, many of the so-called metrics of human-induced climate change are not changing at rates policymakers have assumed and the media promotes with the indulgence of the IPCC Leadership. And, other variables showing change are still within the magnitudes of long-term natural variations.

Thirdly, confidence that the climate system is highly sensitive to greenhouse gases can been shown to be overstated due to assumptions about how the sensitivity is calculated. Latest measurements clearly suggest a strong negative feedback in the short wave – in other words, in warming episodes, clouds respond to cool the climate. Another problem with popular sensitivity estimates is the dependence on essentially one century of an oblique greenhouse-proxy (mean surface temperature) combined with the notion that all of the natural, multi-decadal variability can be defined so accurately that the left-over warming is assumed to be human-induced. The investigation rather should examine all levels of natural variability that have been observed and seek to defensibly eliminate those as possible causes.

An alternative view is necessary, one that is not censured for the so-called purpose of consensus. This will present to our policymakers an honest picture of scientific discourse and process. I submit this proposal because our level of ignorance of the climate system is still enormous and our policymakers need to know that. We have much work to do.

Bjorn Lomborg on Technology

In this article, Bjorn Lomborg bemoans the reality that two decades of political posturing and treaty manufacture has accomplished zero. And let us consider that. Reducing our dependence on carbon combustion was simply difficult and is still difficult. It costs more even with present superior pricing. That it costs more is a major difficulty. So long as carbon based fuels are cheaper than alternatives or simply more convenient, they will naturally be used first.

That a universal tax might change the economics is true. Except it has to be universal. No nation can stand outside such a rule. That is the ongoing problem faced by humanity, no one wants to address the need for the creation of universal commissions of the environment who have authority to develop and implement best practice and oversee it.

Common action will solve just about all else. It may sound simplistic, but valid cheap solutions are lying around unimplemented. A lot is simply human inertia. After all, if your engineering career has been about building land fills, then all waste solutions are land fill projects. What is more, you have the reputation and political support all locked down.

The good news, provided one has patience is that better solutions will eventually find their champions and be made operational.

I have told you about acid rain in a pipe. The science is all known. The engineering components are all known. One engineer will someday bravely get a small operation going on an individual smoke stack to learn his business. This will take three to five years before everyone is satisfied. This will then lead to a single large application built out. It too will operate for five years allowing proper papers to be presented at the proper engineering conferences. Then, about ten years on several groups will use the technology and build out several separate plants. We now have well established technology that possibly becomes universal.

I have seen this happen with SAGD in the oil business and in many other situations. The process is so slow as to be almost invisible.

The only thing that can speed this up is crisis.

We are heading for an oil supply crisis. That means the drive to alternatives will become frantic. Some think it has already begun, although that is not true. Somehow we are continuing to sustain present levels of oil production. I do not think that we can lose any more production right now.

A supply crisis has already been prepared for over the past year as every shrewd operator has ramped up his capacity to replace hydrocarbons. It will not be enough but the onslaught of investment in alternatives will us turn the corner quickly.

A swift switch out in carbon dependence which is now setting up will make Kyoto obsolete.

Technology Can Fight Global Warming

Marine cloud whitening, and other ideas.

By BJøRN LOMBORG

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574376442559564788.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

We have precious little to show for nearly 20 years of efforts to prevent global warming. Promises in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 to cut carbon emissions went unfulfilled. Stronger pledges in Kyoto five years later failed to keep emissions in check. The only possible lesson is that agreements to reduce carbon emissions are costly, politically arduous and ultimately ineffective.

But this is a lesson many are hell-bent on ignoring, as politicians plan to gather again—this time in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December—to negotiate a new carbon-emissions treaty. Even if they manage to bridge their differences and sign a deal, there is a strong likelihood that tomorrow's politicians will fail to deliver.

Global warming does not just require action; it requires effective action. Otherwise we are just squandering time.

To inform the debate, the Copenhagen Consensus Center has commissioned research looking at the costs and benefits of all the policy options. For example, internationally renowned climate economist Richard Tol of Ireland's Economic and Social Research Institute finds that a low carbon tax of $2 a metric ton (1.2 tons U.S.) is the only carbon reduction policy that would make economic sense. But his research demonstrates the futility of trying to use carbon cuts to keep temperature increases under 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), which many argue would avoid the worst of climate change's impacts.

Some economic models find that target impossible to reach without drastic action, like cutting the world population by a third. Other models show that achieving the target by a high CO2 tax would reduce world GDP a staggering 12.9% in 2100—the equivalent of $40 trillion a year.

Some may claim that global warming will be so terrible that a 12.9% reduction in GDP is a small price to pay. But consider that the majority of economic models show that unconstrained global warming would cost rich nations around 2% of GDP and poor countries around 5% by 2100.

Even those figures are an overstatement. A group of climate economists at the University of Venice led by Carlo Carraro looked closely at how people will adapt to climate change. Their research for the Copenhagen Consensus Center showed that farmers in areas with less water for agriculture could use more drip irrigation, for example, while those with more water will grow more crops.

Taking a variety of natural, so-called market adaptations into account, the Carraro research shows we will acclimatize to the negative impacts of global warming and exploit the positive changes, actually creating 0.1% increase in GDP in 2100 among the member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In poor countries, market adaptation will reduce climate change-related losses to 2.9% of GDP. This remains a significant, negative effect. The real challenge of global warming lies in tackling its impact on the Third World. Yet adaptation has other positive benefits. If we prepare societies for more ferocious hurricanes in the future, we also help them to cope better with today's extreme weather.

This does not mean, however, that we should ignore rising greenhouse-gas emissions. Research for the Copenhagen Consensus Center by Claudia Kemfert of German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin shows that in terms of reducing climate damage, reducing methane emissions is cheaper than reducing CO2 emissions, and—because methane is a much shorter-living gas—its mitigation could do a lot to prevent some of the worst of short-term warming. Other research papers highlight the advantages of planting more trees and protecting the forests we have to absorb CO2 and cut greenhouse gases.

Other more speculative approaches deserve consideration. In groundbreaking research, J. Eric Bickel, an economist and engineer at the University of Texas, and Lee Lane, a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, study the costs and benefits of climate engineering. One proposal would have boats spray seawater droplets into clouds above the sea to make them reflect more sunlight back into space—augmenting the natural process where evaporating ocean sea salt helps to provide tiny particles for clouds to form around.

Remarkably, Mr. Bickel finds that about $9 billion spent developing this so-called marine cloud whitening technology might be able to cancel out this century's global warming. The benefits—from preventing the temperature increase—would add up to about $20 trillion.

Climate engineering raises ethical concerns. But if we care most about avoiding warmer temperatures, we cannot avoid considering a simple, cost-effective approach that shows so much promise.

Nothing short of a technological revolution is required to end our reliance on fossil fuel—and we are not even close to getting this revolution started. Economists Chris Green and Isabel Galiana from McGill University point out that nonfossil sources like nuclear, wind, solar and geothermal energy will—based on today's availability—get us less than halfway toward a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100.

A high carbon tax will simply hurt growth if alternative technology is not ready, making us all worse off. Mr. Green proposes that policy makers abandon carbon-reduction negotiations and make agreements to seriously invest in research and development. Mr. Green's research suggests that investing about $100 billion annually in noncarbon based energy research could result in essentially stopping global warming within a century or so.

A technology-led effort would have a much greater chance of actually tackling climate change. It would also have a much greater chance of political success, since countries that fear signing on to costly emission targets are more likely to embrace the cheaper, smarter path of innovation.

Cutting emissions of greenhouse gases is not the only answer to global warming. Next week, a group of Nobel Laureate economists will gather at Georgetown University to consider all of the new research and identify the solutions that are most effective. Hopefully, their results will influence debate and help shift decision makers away from a narrow focus on one, deeply flawed response to global warming.

Our generation will not be judged on the brilliance of our rhetoric about global warming, or on the depth of our concern. We will be judged on whether or not we stop the suffering that global warming will cause. Politicians need to stop promising the moon, and start looking at the most effective ways to help planet Earth.

Mr. Lomborg teaches at the Copenhagen Business School and is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. He is the author of "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming" (Knopf, 2007.)

Climate Pact Thoughts

Those that have followed my blog for some time know that I hold two positions in regards to global warming.

The first is that linking CO2 emissions directly to climate change is not supported by any science that is not at best cooked. This is a little stronger than my first posts, but the science has proven to be increasingly spurious. I consider it a mistake in any case and have been proven correct inasmuch as the case is weakened daily by every weather shift that fails to conform to the apparent hoped for trend line. If I erred it was in underestimating how quickly Mother Nature would repudiate this misbegotten stepchild of climate science.

The second is that CO2 emissions are hugely important as they are produced by human activities and clearly need to be diverted. In fact they are proof that our technology is not sustainable in the face of rising populations. I further recognized that the solution had to come with the globe’s farmers, not our engineers.

This led to the discovery of the scant literature on biochar or as then known, terra preta. I immediately recognized the importance of this technology and proposed a method that subsistence farmers could use to implement the method. My immediate recognition came about because of prior research on solid crystalline acids that also led directly to the conjecture that activated carbon would be beneficial to horticulture a decade or more earlier. At the time I understood that formal introduction of such methods would be both uneconomic and difficult because of the long product development cycle in agriculture. I was startled and pleased to discover that the Amazonian Indios had been conducting field trials for thousands of years. This made the methodology battle ready with only trivial naysayers to slow it down. In the past two years it has been advancing five steps at a time as more and more pot tests and field tests are been conducted everywhere.

This conference brings biochar up front and center for the first time and it will now weigh heavily in all further discussions.

If all parties agree to advance the acceptance of biochar as a carbon sequestration option on a global basis, then the battle is over but for the details. The rest is shouting in the wind.

Canada and the USA can meet all their obligations by converting their agricultural subsidy programs into sequestration credit programs, and so can Europe. In those cases they restore the soils to their natural fertility as a bonus. China and India both also benefit hugely by following this protocol. The moment they do that they can demand the same standards from their importers. Sooner or later it will all work itself out.

Climate pact: What kind of deal can emerge in Copenhagen?

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Climate_pact_What_kind_of_deal_can_emerge_in_Copenhagen_999.html

Paris (AFP) June 14, 2009

Official smiles and breezy confidence were firmly on display after the latest round of UN talks that aim to build a landmark treaty on climate change.

But only six months are left for completing a deal as fiendish in its complexity as it is unprecedented in ambition. Can it be done?

In the corridors of Bonn's Maritim Hotel, where the 12-day round unfolded under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), many delegates seemed to have quietly acknowledged the impossibility of sewing everything up in December in Copenhagan.

That goal is enshrined in the "Bali Road Map," laid down at a global gathering in December 2007.

The vision is to set curbs on emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases beyond 2012, with intermediate targets for 2020 that would be ratcheted up all the way to 2050.

UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer insisted on Friday a "comprehensive" agreement could be reached in Copenhagen, and one "that can give a strong and definite answer to the (...) climate alarm that has been ringing loudly over the past few years."

European Union negotiator Artur Runge-Metzger said "a ratifiable treaty" was still in sight, and Jonathan Pershing, for the United States, likewise reiterated his endorsement of this aim.

If so, a mountain of work lies ahead.

A 50-page draft negotiation blueprint has exploded to more than 200 pages after countries stuffed it with rival proposals, and may expand even further in informal talks in August.

There has been no progress on the biggest question, of how to share the burden of future emissions cuts -- and scientists say the proposals that are on the table fall dismally short of what is needed.

No agreement is in sight over helping poor countries to cope with the impacts of climate change and procure clean technology to avoid becoming the carbon culprits of the future.

"I don't see anyone coming forward with anything that could prepare the ground for a breakthrough," said Kim Carstensen of green group WWF. "What I see is the reverse, I see ground being prepared for a battle."

Just as worryingly, ideas are only now starting to be aired about an existential question -- the legal status of the future agreement -- which could revive friction between the United States and supporters of the Kyoto Protocol.

Nor has anyone broached the explosive problems of what teeth to build into the treaty for non-compliance, and how to punish Australia, Canada, Japan and other countries that are likely to overshoot their 2012 emissions targets under Kyoto.

Michael Zammit Cutajar, in charge of one of the two big negotiation groups, said he was unfazed that his draft text had ballooned, arguing breakthroughs traditionally come in the very final days or hours of haggling.

"This is like the evolutionary process in reverse. The Big Bang comes at the end," he quipped.

If past experience of climate negotiations is any guide, a breakthrough depends on movement at the very top.

There are some good opportunities to provide this before Copenhagen, with the G8 summit in Italy in July, which will also be attended by the heads of emerging giant economies, followed by an expected UN climate summit in September in New York.

Rumours abound, too, of preparations for accommodating President Barack Obama in Copenhagen, although whether this is in the role of deal-maker or deal-blesser is unclear.

And past experience of climate negotiations also says that breakthroughs never dot 'i's or cross 't's.

The Kyoto Protocol, for instance, was born as a framework agreement in 1997 after exhausting talks.

But another four years were needed to complete its rulebook. Then footdragging by Russia over ratification meant the treaty eventually took effect in February 2005.

Karstensen and others said a likely scenario at Copenhagen would be a deal on core issues, followed by further negotiations to fill in the details.

Slippage from the "Bali Road Map" deadline would be acceptable, provided the core deal was strong and the follow-on talks wrapped up quickly, said Karstensen.

One major worry, though, is a gap between the end of 2012 and when the treaty would take effect, which could wreck the carbon markets created under Kyoto.

"A full and ratifiable treaty would have to emerge by the end of 2010. Later than that, I don't see it working," said Karstensen.

Global Wind Power Rising

The wind industry is clearly in full flight. It is way ahead of all other alternative energy methods simply because it was more or less economic even in the beginning, or at least a little bit of subsidy made it so.

Now the manufacturers are going full out and are not exposed to a single buyer. In fact, the economic model is a banker’s dream all the way around. And after the global crash in real estate, bankers need better product then the homeowner’s paycheck. Selling power for decades satisfies that need.

Thus for the next five years, the wind industry has the Market largely to itself. Solar has only now perhaps broken the cost barrier and has a lot of product development to get out of the way over the next five years, so it is still not in the banker’s comfort zone but it is certainly coming with the present work underway.

The other big alternative prospect is thermal which is about to go toward the mega project route with the essential demonstration plants now happening. That also requires a few years of development to bring up to been able to match demand.

So for now, wind is the winner of this horserace by a lap or two.

Global Wind Power Could Generate 318 Gigawatts By 2013

http://www.winddaily.com/reports/Global_Wind_Power_Could_Generate_318_Gigawatts_By_2013_999.html


by Staff Writers
Oyster Bay NY (SPX) Jun 16, 2009


The emission-neutral energy provided by wind power represents a unique opportunity to help the world end its reliance on expensive, polluting fossil fuels, and to spur the economy by creating millions of "green collar" jobs.

Wind power has followed an evolutionary path over thousands of years that has transformed it from an efficient method for grinding grain into the world's fastest-growing, most cost-competitive, sustainable energy source.

A new market study by NextGen Research, "Global Wind Power Market: The Outlook for Renewable Energy Generation by Wind Turbines, Wind Farms", forecasts that global wind-based electrical generation capacity, which totaled just under 121 gigawatts (GW) in 2008 (a record year for new installations), will reach 318.5 GW by 2013.

Spurring this growth will be a boom in China's renewable energy industry; government support in the form of subsidies, feed-in tariffs and Renewable Portfolio Standards, and international goals for renewable energy usage established under accords like the Kyoto Protocol and the EU's Renewables Directive.

The study's author, Keith Reinhardt, says that despite the troubled economic climate, the global business environment has never been so favorable for the widespread proliferation of wind power equipment.

"The wind power industry worldwide has surged over the past decade, as demand has been driven by aggressive government mandates and subsidies designed to promote energy independence and reduce toxic emissions. Moreover, the growing prevalence of policy implemented to ensure a long-term market for wind power and to promote investor certainty continues to facilitate growth in emerging markets with massive potential."

Mr. Reinhardt says that the global recession dealt a glancing blow to the wind power industry in 2009 by forcing many developers to cancel or delay projects. However, he says, the industry will rebound sharply during 2010 as credit markets thaw and the flow of capital resumes.

"The world has embarked on a green revolution, with a growing number of aggressive government policies mandating increased reliance on renewable energy. In addition, the cost of generating electricity from wind is approaching parity with traditional energy sources, and could become cheaper than fossil fuel-based electrical generation regardless of government subsidies as fuel prices rise and a standardized global value is placed on carbon emissions.

Canada to Launch Carbon Market

I was asked a couple of years ago to review the options available regarding a carbon market in Canada and immediately put it on the back burner, been well aware of the glacial speed by which government operates. Now we are going to attempt a market and that is at least a good start. The problem is not the idea so much as the gaming going on in the early going that makes the market very dicey.

The European history demonstrates this totally.

The first problem is that each country adopts a beggar thy neighbor approach in which they try to solve it by balancing their own books. And of course there is no real local solution to eliminating the carbon in the first place, anymore than there is an internal solution for North American crop production surplusess.

The only viable solution that can be applied universally is the use of biochar as a soil builder everywhere. The benefits are themselves huge and worthwhile in their own right. The measurement can be done comfortably every five years or so to a high level of precision. Even if the operator tries gaming the system, in the long run it will naturally average out.

Most important, it is done just as easy by those prepared to use hand labor instead of a lot of heavy equipment.

I would go so far as to make it the only accepted carbon sequestration system at all. The reason for this is that alternatives provide no secondary benefit whatsoever unless it is to encourage more oil to the surface. Try and argue for that one.

If the carbon market woke up and discovered that the only offset to a carbon problem is a patch of enhancible farmland, then we would have an agricultural land rush that would make the populating of the prairies a small time event. There is money for this and two billion folks with shovels waiting for a little bit of financial support from us.

Two billion new farmers will turn into two billion new land holders and have families who are part of the modern world, just by turning the tropical soils into fertile crop lands known as terra mulato.


Yes folks, it really can be just that easy. Except for all the self serving farm lobbies in the developed world that fear a level playing field of any kind and will pay huge money to queer what common sense demands.

As an aside, both Canada and particularly the US could adopt a biochar protocol in the corn growing lands in particular as a method of restoring soils and rebuilding those soils lost in the past century. We would then be spending the next century rebuilding those soils back to their original health.

Therefore if industry found that a large chunk of their problem got solved this way, it is pretty easy to see what they will do to get rid of the rest profitably in tropical latifundia..

Canada to establish carbon trading market

http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Canada_to_establish_carbon_trading_market_999.html


by Staff Writers
Ottawa (AFP) June 10, 2009

Canada announced Wednesday plans for a carbon market that could eventually link up with nascent EU and proposed US markets to form a global system for carbon pollution trading.

The local market would provide Canadian companies and individuals an opportunity to reduce their carbon emissions, which are linked to global warming.

"It does so by establishing a price for carbon in Canada -- something that has never been done before in this country," Environment Minister Jim Prentice said in a speech to the Economic Club of Canada.

"Anyone wanting to offset their emissions will be able to purchase credits -- from small businesses, to individuals, to travelers," he said.

"Every offset credit will represent a real and verified emission reduction, equal to the equivalent of one tonne of carbon dioxide."

Rules and requirements for generating offset credits, including registration of projects and issuance of actual credits and an explanation of how CO2 cuts would be verified, are to be published after a 60-day public consultation.

"Projects that could qualify for offsets span the economy," said Prentice, "from farmers using reduced or no-till techniques to store more carbon dioxide in their fields, to wind turbines producing clean electricity using only the wind, to landfill sites that are able to turn captured methane into usable fuel."

The new system would also target emissions from activities and sectors not covered by planned limits on big industrial polluters, he said.

Under Europe's nascent Emissions Trading System, the EU allocates carbon polluting allowances to member states to meet its obligations under the UN's Kyoto Protocol.

The states then assign quotas to those industries that belch most CO2 into the atmosphere.

Companies that emit less than their allowance can sell the difference on the market to companies that exceed their limits, thus providing a financial carrot to everyone to become greener.

The ETS is touted by supporters as a model for US President Barack Obama's own cap-and-trade scheme and others seeking to cut greenhouse gases and boost green technologies.

However, since its inception it has twice crashed.

In 2007, carbon quotas, set during an initial two-year test period, turned out to be far too generous. After a months-long slump, prices picked up when governments set tougher targets for the 2008-2012 period.

The price of a tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) or its equivalent again nosedived this month as big European polluters, responding to plummeting demand for their products in a global recession, emitted less.

In December, the United Nations is to hold its 15th climate change conference in Copenhagen.

The summit aims to forge a new global agreement on climate change, to take over from the Kyoto Protocol after it expires in 2012.

"Failure to make progress in Copenhagen is simply not an option," Prentice also commented.

"The consequences are too great, the stakes too high, not to bring to that meeting our best efforts and unwavering resolve," he said.

Lomborg on Cutting CO2 Emissions

Bjorn Lomborg once again makes a powerful argument questioning our assumptions regarding action on Global Warming and points out that the cost reward ratios for the proposed solutions simply fail to work, while other protocols have better outcomes altogether while appearing counter intuitive.

Been a champion on the implementation of biochar carbon sequestration done in such a way as to fully engage agriculture even at the subsistence level, I obviously do not care much how much carbon is burned so long as an equal amount is sequestered while improving the life way of billions of subsistence farmers.

I am also too well aware that directly tackling CO2 without recruiting the sun is certain to expend as much energy as perhaps originally generated. This is the end of the entropy food chain.

Lombord has published many critical results pertaining to the economics of various strategies and is a recognized authority that is not likely to get things wrong. This is in sharp contrast to the likes of Al Gore who cannot leave an expedient stretched fact alone.

The one take home here is how much the developing world relies on burning carbon. We can waltz into the sunset on nuclear, and geothermal and even solar and happily displace the coal burners. China and India do not have that luxury. They want power now. Later perhaps.

This is going to be just as true for Africa and South America. And there, they are stripping forests to produce charcoal and need coal technology right now.

The really good news is that these countries are passing through the industrial revolution in literally a man’s short lifetime. A child today been fed with food cooked over a charcoal burner, will grow up to mine coal and retire to a home heated with nuclear power.


Op-Ed Contributor

Don’t Waste Time Cutting Emissions
By BJORN LOMBORG

Published: April 24, 2009
Copenhagen
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/25/opinion/25lomborg.html?_r=1

WE are often told that tackling global warming should be the defining task of our age — that we must cut emissions immediately and drastically. But people are not buying the idea that, unless we act, the planet is doomed. Several recent polls have revealed Americans’ growing skepticism. Solving global warming has become their lowest policy priority, according to a new Pew survey.

Moreover, strategies to reduce carbon have failed. Meeting in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, politicians from wealthy countries promised to cut emissions by 2000, but did no such thing. In Kyoto in 1997, leaders promised even stricter reductions by 2010, yet emissions have kept increasing unabated. Still, the leaders plan to meet in Copenhagen this December to agree to even more of the same — drastic reductions in emissions that no one will live up to. Another decade will be wasted.

Fortunately, there is a better option: to make low-carbon alternatives like solar and wind energy competitive with old carbon sources. This requires much more spending on research and development of low-carbon energy technology. We might have assumed that investment in this research would have increased when the Kyoto Protocol made fossil fuel use more expensive, but it has not.

Economic estimates that assign value to the long-term benefits that would come from reducing warming — things like fewer deaths from heat and less flooding — show that every dollar invested in quickly making low-carbon energy cheaper can do $16 worth of good. If the Kyoto agreement were fully obeyed through 2099, it would cut temperatures by only 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit. Each dollar would do only about 30 cents worth of good.

The Copenhagen agreement should instead call for every country to spend one-twentieth of a percent of its gross domestic product on low-carbon energy research and development. That would increase the amount of such spending 15-fold to $30 billion, yet the total cost would be only a sixth of the estimated $180 billion worth of lost growth that would result from the Kyoto restrictions.

Kyoto-style emissions cuts can only ever be an expensive distraction from the real business of weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. The fact is, carbon remains the only way for developing countries to work their way out of poverty. Coal burning provides half of the world’s electricity, and fully 80 percent of it in China and India, where laborers now enjoy a quality of life that their parents could barely imagine.

No green energy source is inexpensive enough to replace coal now. Given substantially more research, however, green energy could be cheaper than fossil fuels by mid-century.

Sadly, the old-style agreement planned for Copenhagen this December will have a negligible effect on temperatures. This renders meaningless any declarations of “success” that might be made after the conference. We must challenge the orthodoxy of Kyoto and create a smarter, more realistic strategy.

Bjorn Lomborg is the director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center at Copenhagen Business School and the author of “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming.”

Biochar Refresher

As my older readers know, I stumbled into the biochar enterprise a month after I started into this blog. At the time there was scholarly effort underway and a modest level of activity on a forum as well as a couple of popular science articles about. At the time I intro’d the forum to a popular science oriented site and this gave both the forum and my modest blog a good boot in traffic. Or at least as far as this observer was able to reasonably discern. I followed that up with a several posts that reconstructed the possible production methodology available to the Amazonians. The proposed method was to use dried out maize stalks to form robust earthen kilns from the large mass of corn stover, otherwise burned. This has continued to stand the test of time as understanding improves.

Most commentators have been trapped into idea that the biochar was formed from the manufacture of charcoal. I suspect that this is completely wrong. Wood charcoal is less attractive for soil work than you might imagine because the majority is in the form of difficult to pulverize chunks. Using such chunks as cooking fuel is a way more likely outcome. The feedstock was any form of non woody plant material that could be packed easily. Biochar is low temperature carbonization of non woody plant material. And corn is still the most convenient feedstock today. The expanding crowd of enthusiasts is now visibly catching up to this position.

We have learned from Amazon reports that there were two field practices indicated. The first called terra preta was concentrated in the household garden and was clearly an ongoing practice that caught everything going out the back door and all garden waste. I suspect that this led to the perfection of the earthen kiln method. A lot of pottery occurs reflecting the centuries of occupation and the lousy quality of the pottery. The fact that it was a way of reducing the family waste explains why so much was actually produced. It is actually a wonderful solution for human waste in particular that could be applied in India today.

The second was the exploitation of larger community fields in which occasional biochar was introduced to sustain fertility and this is known as terra mulatto. No pottery is observed, eliminating the need to explain its presence at all. It is not hard to reconstruct a crop rotation system that would exploit corn and earthen kilns to make this happen.

What I am saying is, that once you quit thinking wood, it becomes an easy system to apply with even no tools except dirt baskets since corn brings its own dirt pad. And recently, we discovered that in the Cameroon natives cut and bury long windrows of elephant grass which they then cover with dirt. Likely by digging a trench first and then throwing the soil back on top of the baled grass. They then ignite one end and let it all burn through, collapsing the dirt on top of the biochar as it is produced.

The other large plus in using a natural earthen kiln is that the design allows creation of a burn front that burns out all the volatiles eliminating most problems with pollution by reduction to CO2. That certainly is the result the elephant grass kiln. Thus we have a natural system that consumes the volatiles safely while converting the rest into low reactive carbon and carbon compounds much of which sequesters for centuries.

SPECIAL REPORT

'Biochar' might help ease global warming

Posted: 17 Mar 2009

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=3522

As multibillion-dollar projects intended to sequester carbon dioxide (CO2) in deep geologic storage continue to seek financial support, the fertile black soils in the Amazon basin suggest a cheaper, lower-tech route toward the same destination. Here David J. Tenenbaum looks at the potential of charcoal, in the form of 'biochar', to help soak up climate-changing gas in the atmosphere.

Scattered patches of dark, charcoal-rich soil known as terra preta (Portuguese for "black earth") are the inspiration for an international effort to explore how burying biomass-derived charcoal, or "biochar," could boost soil fertility and transfer a sizeable amount of CO2 from the atmosphere into safe storage in topsoil.

Although burial of biochar is just beginning to be tested in long-term, field-scale trials, studies of Amazonian terra preta show that charcoal can lock up carbon in the soil for centuries and improve soil fertility.

Charcoal is made by heating wood or other organic material with a limited supply of oxygen (a process termed 'pyrolysis'). The products of the pyrolysis process vary by the raw material used, burning time, and temperature, but in principle, volatile hydrocarbons and most of the oxygen and hydrogen in the biomass are burned or driven off, leaving carbon-enriched black solids with a structure that resists chemical and microbial degradation.

Christoph Steiner, a research scientist at the University of Georgia, says the difference between charcoal and biochar lies primarily in the end use. "Charcoal is a fuel, and biochar has a nonfuel use that makes carbon sequestration feasible," he explains. "Otherwise there is no difference between charcoal carbon and biochar carbon."

Charcoal is traditionally made by burning wood in pits or temporary structures, but modern pyrolysis equipment greatly reduces the air pollution associated with this practice. Gases emitted from pyrolysis can be captured to generate valuable products instead of being released as smoke. Some of the by-products can be condensed into "bio-oil," a liquid that can be upgraded to fuels including biodiesel and synthesis gas. A portion of the noncondensable fraction is burned to heat the pyrolysis chamber, and the rest can provide heat or fuel an electric generator.

Pyrolysis equipment now being developed at several public and private institutions typically operate at 350–700°C. In Golden, Colorado, Biochar Engineering Corporation is building portable $50,000 pyrolyzers that researchers will use to produce 1–2 tons of biochar per week. Company CEO Jim Fournier says the firm is planning larger units that could be trucked into position. Biomass is expensive to transport, he says, so pyrolysis units located near the source of the biomass are preferable to larger, centrally located facilities, even when the units reach commercial scale.

Better soil

Spanish conquistador Francisco de Orellana reported seeing large cities on the Amazon River in 1541, but how had such large populations raised their food on the poor Amazonian soils? Low in organic matter and poor at retaining plant nutrients — which makes fertilization inefficient — these soils are quickly depleted by annual cropping. The answer lay in the incorporation of charcoal into soils, a custom still practiced by millions of people worldwide, according to Steiner. This practice allowed continuous cultivation of the same Amazonian fields and thereby supported the establishment of cities.

Researchers who have tested the impact of biochar on soil fertility say that much of the benefit may derive from biochar’s vast surface area and complex pore structure, which is hospitable to the bacteria and fungi that plants need to absorb nutrients from the soil. Steiner says, "We believe that the structure of charcoal provides a secure habitat for microbiota, which is very important for crop production." Steiner and coauthors noted in the 2003 book Amazonian Dark Earths that the charcoal-mediated enhancement of soil caused a 280–400 per cent increase in plant uptake of nitrogen.

The contrast between charcoal-enriched soil and typical Amazonian soil is still obvious, says Clark Erickson, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania. Terra preta stands out, he says, because the surrounding soils in general are poor, red, oxidized, and so rich in iron and aluminum that they sometimes are actually toxic to plants. Today, patches of terra preta are often used as gardens, he adds.

Anna Roosevelt, a professor of anthropology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, believes terra preta was created accidentally through the accumulation of garbage. The dark soil, she says, is full of human cultural traces such as house foundations, hearths, cemeteries, food remains, and artifacts, along with charcoal. In contrast, Erickson says he’s sure the Amazonian peoples knew exactly what they were doing when they developed this rich soil. As evidence, he says, "All humans produce and toss out garbage, but the terra preta phenomenon is limited to a few world regions."

Recent studies show that, although biochar alone does not boost crop productivity, biochar plus compost or conventional fertilizers makes a big difference. In the February 2007 issue of Plant and Soil, Steiner, along with Cornell University soil scientist Johannes Lehmann and colleagues, demonstrated that use of biochar plus chemical amendments (nitrogen–phosphorus–potassium fertilizer and lime) on average doubled grain yield over four harvests compared with the use of fertilizer alone.

Banking Carbon

Reseachers have come to realize the use of biochar also has phenomenal potential for sequestering carbon in a warming world. The soil already holds 3.3 times as much carbon as the atmosphere, according to a proposal Steiner wrote for submission to the recent UN climate conference in Poznan, Poland. However, Steiner wrote, many soils have the capacity to hold probably several hundred billions of tons more.

Plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, then store the carbon in their tissues. CO2 is released back into the atmosphere after plant tissues decay or are burned or consumed, and the CO2 is then mineralized. If plant materials are transformed into charcoal, however, the carbon is permanently fixed in a solid form — evidence from Amazonia, where terra preta remains black and productive after several thousand years, suggests that biochar is highly stable.

Carbon can also be stored in soil as crop residues or humus (a more stable material formed in soil from decaying organic matter). But soil chemist Jim Amonette of the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory points out that crop residues usually oxidize into CO2 and are released into the atmosphere within a couple of years, and the lifetime of carbon in humus is typically less than 25 years.

Four scenarios for carbon storage have been calculated by the nonprofit International Biochar Initiative (IBI). The "moderate" scenario assumed that 2.1 per cent of the earth's annual total photosynthesized carbon would be available for conversion to biochar, containing 40 per cent of the carbon in the original biomass. It estimates that incorporating this charcoal in the soil would remove half a billion metric tons of carbon from the atmosphere annually.

Because the heat and chemical energy released during pyrolysis could replace energy derived from fossil fuels, the IBI calculates the total benefit would be equivalent to removing about 1.2 billion metric tons of carbon from the atmosphere each year. That would offset 29 per cent of today’s net rise in atmospheric carbon, which is estimated at 4.1 billion metric tons, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Ordinary biomass fuels are carbon-neutral — the carbon captured in the biomass by photosynthesis would have eventually returned to the atmosphere through natural processes; burning plants for energy just speeds it up. Biochar systems can be carbon-negative because they retain a substantial portion of the carbon fixed by plants.

Simple technology

It is these large numbers — combined with the simplicity of the technology — that has attracted a broad range of supporters. At Michigan Technological University, for example, undergraduate Amanda Taylor says she is "interested in changing the world" by sequestering carbon through biochar.

Under the guidance of Department of Humanities instructor Michael Moore, Taylor and fellow students established a research group to study the production and use of biochar as well as how terra preta might fit into a framework of community and global sustainability. Among other projects, the students made their own biochar in a 55-gallon drum and found that positioning the drum horizontally produced the best burn.

The numbers are entirely theoretical at this point, and any effort to project the impact of biochar on the global carbon cycle is necessarily speculative, says Lehmann. "These estimates are at best probing the theoretical potential as a means of highlighting the need to fully explore any practical potential, and these potentials need to be looked at from environmental, social, and technological viewpoints. The reason we have no true prediction of the potential is because biochar has not been fully tested at the scale that it needs to be implemented at to achieve these predictions."

Still, Steiner stresses that other large-scale carbon-storage possibilities also face uncertainties. "Forests only capture carbon as long as they grow, and the duration of sequestration depends very much on what happens afterward," he says. "If the trees are used for toilet paper, the capture time is very short." Soilborne charcoal, in contrast, is more stable, he says: "The risk of losing the carbon is very small — it cannot burn or be wiped out by disease, like a forest."

As a carbon mitigation strategy, most biochar advocates believe biochar should be made only from plant waste, not from trees or plants grown on plantations. "The charcoal should not come from cutting down the rainforest and growing eucalyptus," says Amonette.

Mitigation strategy

Biochar took a step toward legitimacy at the December Poznan conference, when the UNCCD placed it in consideration for negotiations for use as a mitigation strategy during the second Kyoto Protocol commitment period, which begins in 2013.

Under the cap-and-trade strategy that forms the backbone of the Kyoto Protocol, businesses can buy certified emission reduction (CER) credits to offset their emissions of greenhouse gases. If biochar is recognized as a mitigation technology under the Kyoto Clean Deveopment Mechanism, people who implement this technology could sell CER credits.

The market price of credits would depend on supply and demand; a high enough price could help promote the adoption of the biochar process.

The possibility that the United Nations will give its stamp of approval to biochar as a climate mitigation strategy means the ancient innovation may finally undergo large-scale testing. "The interest is growing extremely fast, but it took many years to receive the attention," says Steiner. "Biochar for carbon sequestration does not have strong financial support compared to carbon capture and storage through geological sequestration. [However,] biochar is much more realistic for carbon capture."

This is a shortened version of an article which first appeared in Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 117, Number 2, February 2009
To find out more about the potential of biochar look out for the publication by Earthscan next month (April) of 'Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and Technology'Edited by Johannes Lehmann and Stephen Joseph. (Hardback £49.95)

2006 Letter to Harper on GW

This item is two and a half years old but has recently popped up in an item from the Morano newsletter. It is well worth reading since it was written then in the face of data that still sort of supported the warmers more than the skeptics.

What has changed is that many members of the scientific community who could be expected to support the promoted global warming dream are now having a major change of heart. The claim that the much heralded consensus which was never a consensus is and was intact is been shredded daily.

We have now entered a period in which the dissenters are piling on the bandwagon. Of course, the violent reversal of global temperatures back to the bad old days before the twenty year warming trend got going has even unnerved the true believers. We are now watching them fracture the language as they inch back from the intellectual cliff they jumped over.

It is almost as if Mother Nature was offended that Al Gore and associates got that Nobel Prize.

April 6, 2006
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

Dear Prime Minister:

As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based.

Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.

We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.

CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources

- - -
Sincerely,

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
* Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta (* Note: Swaters later recanted his signature on the open letter)
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Benny Peiser on Poznan

To say that the players at Poznan are having sober second thoughts is an understatement. The science was supposed to be settled, yet now it is not. In the meantime CO2 has risen sharply while global temperatures flat lined and then recently dropped. I am still waiting for someone to come out with an explanation. We obviously will have to wait a while longer while a few more scientists can distance themselves from previous positions.

This article by Benny Peiser summarizes the reasons for the developing political collapse. The costs are been felt at the same time that the causation is evaporating. The true believers are still walking the walk to their shame as scientists. Eventually even the politicians will start jumping ship unless next spring delivers a convincing warm spell in the Arctic and global warming resumes. I look forward to been surprised.

Right now we are catching a very convincing cold winter with no surplus heat to spare anywhere. I would actually go so far as to predict that the global temperature drop of 0.7 degrees experienced last year will be added to this year by around 0.3 degrees. By the end of next year solar cycle 24 should be back in play and the temperature will then stabilize thereafter. Perhaps it will even get warm again.

None of this is good news for the believers who will need to keep up morale for at least another year. We are also not that far from catching weather like the late fifties when you could count on been hammered every winter just like now. In the meantime I will have to put on the winter boots tomorrow in Vancouver and expect repeats this year. Usually it is once slightly if at all.

DECEMBER 15, 2008, 4:57 P.M. ET

Cooling on Global Warming

Germany and the rest of Europe are getting more rational on climate change.

By BENNY PEISER From today's Wall Street Journal Europe

Participants at last week's United Nations climate conference in Poznan, Poland, were taken aback by a world seemingly turned upside-down. The traditional villains and heroes of the international climate narrative, the wicked U.S. and the noble European Union, had unexpectedly swapped roles. For once, it was the EU that was criticized for backpedalling on its CO2 targets while Europe's climate nemesis, the U.S., found itself commended for electing an environmental champion as president.

The wrangle over the EU's controversial climate package at a separate summit in Brussels wrong-footed the world's green bureaucracy. The EU climate deal was diluted beyond recognition. Instead of standing by plans to cut CO2 emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, the actual reductions might be as trivial as 4% if all exemptions are factored in.

The Brussels summit symbolizes a turning point. The watered-down climate deal epitomizes the onset of a cooling period in Europe's hitherto overheated climate debate. It may lead eventually to the complete abandonment of the unilateral climate agenda that has shaped Europe's green philosophy for nearly 20 years.

The reasons for the changing political atmosphere in Europe are manifold. First, the global economic crisis has demoted green policies nearer to the bottom of the political agenda. Saving the economy and creating jobs take priority now.

Second, disillusionment with the failed Kyoto Protocol has turned utopian thinking into sobriety. After all, most of the Kyoto signatories failed to reduce their CO2 emissions during the last 10 years. There are also growing doubts about the long-term viability of the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme. The price of carbon credits has collapsed as a result of the financial crisis. The drop in demand and the recession are likely to depress carbon prices for years to come. As a result, the effectiveness of the extremely volatile scheme is increasingly questioned.

Third, a number of countries have experienced a political backlash over their renewable energy schemes. Tens of billions of euros of taxpayers' money have been pumped into projects that depend on endless government handouts. Each of the 35,000 solar jobs in Germany, for instance, is subsidized to the tune of €130,000. According to estimates by the Rhine-Westphalia Institute for Economic Research, green subsidies will cost German electricity consumers nearly €27 billion in the next two years.

Perhaps even more important is the growing realization that the warming trend of the late 20th century has, for the last 10 years or so, essentially come to a temporary halt. The data collected by international meteorological offices confirm this. This most peculiar fact is rarely mentioned in policy debates, but it certainly provides decision makers with a vital respite to reconsider their climate policy options.

Above all, Europe's politicians have recognized that green taxes have turned into liabilities that may undermine economic stability and their chances of re-election. As German radio Deutsche Welle put it last week: "With the recession tightening its grip on the German economy, [Chancellor Angela] Merkel is betting that job reassurance is more important to the average worker than being a pioneer in tackling climate change."

Nowhere has the fundamental change of the political landscape been more pronounced and less expected than in Germany. For more than 20 years, Europe's economic powerhouse has been the major bastion of green politics.

In the 1990s, Angela Merkel steered and implemented Europe's Kyoto policy as Germany's first environment minister. Now serving as chancellor, she was hailed as Europe's climate savior after playing host to last year's G-8 summit in Heiligendamm. Only 18 months later, however, she no longer wears a halo. As a result of a concerted campaign by Germany's heavy industry, as well as growing opposition from within her Christian Democratic party, Mrs. Merkel has been forced to abandon her green principles and image.

The deepening economic crisis seems to transform the mood of the German public. Next year's general election looms large, and voters right now are worried about the economy and jobs, and not green issues.

In early December, more than 10,000 angry metal workers and trade unionists -- most of them from Germany -- protested outside the European Parliament in Brussels against the EU's climate policy, which they fear will increase unemployment.

For many international observers, the ease with which Mrs. Merkel overturned her celebrated climate policy has come as a shock. But she was almost the last member of her Christian Democratic party willing to accept that a change in strategy was necessary given the immense costs of the EU's original climate plans. In fact, her party demanded that Mrs. Merkel veto the climate package if German industry did not receive an exemption from the Emissions Trading Scheme's auctioning of carbon credits. The exemption was duly granted.

Perhaps the most critical factor for Mrs. Merkel's almost unchallenged about-face is the vanishing strength of the Social Democratic Party, whose members were once among the most forceful climate alarmists. Mrs. Merkel's junior coalition partner has lost much of its support in recent years. And amid growing fears of a deepening recession, there are also signs of a split within the party on climate and energy issues.

At the forefront of the left-wing opposition to the EU's climate policy has been EU Industry Commissioner Günter Verheugen. The German Social Democrat has been arguing throughout the year that the climate targets should only be accepted if "truly cost-effective solutions" could be found. Other prominent dissenters in his party include Hubertus Schmoldt, the head of the mining, chemical and energy industrial union, who has recently called for a two-year postponement of the climate package.

In part as a result of German -- as well as Italian and Polish -- objections, Europe's climate package did not survive in its original form. The inclusion of a revision clause, pushed by Italy, is particularly significant as it makes the EU's climate targets conditional on the outcome of international climate talks.

If the U.N.'s Copenhagen conference in 2009 fails to seal a post-Kyoto deal, it is as good as certain that some of the EU's targets will be further cut. By linking its decisions to those of the rest of the world, Europe has begun to act as a more rational player on the stage of international climate diplomacy.

Instead of yielding to the siren calls of climate alarmists, European governments would be well advised to focus their attention on developing pragmatic policies capable of safeguarding their industries, labor forces and environment at the same time.