Coverage of manmade global warming theory & energy policy in the [Wilmington] News Journal:

7/27/10, A9, “Just when the country needs it, horse sense is scarce,” John Engelman (Community Advisory Board) – “Horse sense” is defined as developing efficient ways to solve real problems, and blue collar workers are said to know all about it.  But white collar workers not so much, when “any old Ivy League graduate can become an investment banker and put his company, and country at incredible risk as he pursues a multimillion-dollar commission.” [What about what government officials do?]

       Republicans are now trying to blame the oil spill on President Obama – but it was they who demanded deregulation and reducing size and cost of government.  “Drill baby, drill,” etc.  And then BP “made a series of avoidable mistakes that a better-funded government regulatory agency could have prevented.”  *** “I want Obama to keep attacking BP.  I want Republicans to defend BP.  One gets places in politics by getting in front of popular issues.”

        [BP did make mistakes, and we have no interest in defending them.  See our comments on an earlier column by Senator Ted Kaufman, 6/20/10.  However, this type of sentiment is misguided and destructive – doesn’t sound much like “horse sense” to us.]

7/26/10, “Carbon dioxide and global warming are not related, Dorothy Kendall (Claymont) – The writer takes issue with 7/16 letter that classed global warming as a “clear and present danger,” pointing out the Medieval Warm Period, etc.  “Our real problem is big government and the risk of a financial collapse,” she concludes. [How true!]

7/23/10 & 7/24/10, Decision re clean energy bill – We could find no coverage of a 7/22 decision by the Senate Democrats to drop, at least for now, the “clean energy bill” that was previously reported on in a 7/16 article and 7/19 editorial.  For information, here is the story from the Washington Times. http://bit.ly/dniF1U

7/22/10, A1/A2, "Sea level rise could doom Del. resources," Molly Murray –Partnership for the Delaware Estuary issued a report, "the culmination of two years of research engaging more than 25 experts at 12 institutions” that “predicts increases in temperatures, precipitation and sea level in the estuary, putting drinking water, habitats at wildlife at risk.” 

       One recommendation of the report is to preserve more forests in southern New York and northeastern Pennsylvania near the Delaware River’s source.  There is also discussion of planning and adaptation that may be helpful in preserving fragile salt marshes, which are reportedly “losing elevation” as a result of dikes built to hold in fresh water and keep out salt water.” [Sounds reasonable, at least on the surface, and consistent with Representative Mike Castle’s column on A-15, “Collaboration is essential to watershed conservation.”]

       Collin O’Mara, secretary of the state Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, sees this program as a way of looking at the “local impact” of global warming” versus “climate change impacts in the Indian Ocean” or whatever.  [In other words, the report is designed to scare Delawareans.]

       According to findings in the report: (a) median temperatures will increase by 4 to 7 degrees” [centigrade or Fahrenheit?] by 2100, (b) precipitation will increase 7% to 9%, (c) there will be “more days of extreme heat and more days of heavy rain or snow” [emphasis added], and (d) sea level will rise between 1.5 and 5 feet causing salt water migration up the Delaware River.

       According to Raymond Najjar, a research at Penn State, the range in these predictions reflects low vs. high CO2 emissions [versus, say, a range of uncertainty concerning future variations in solar activity].

[The macro assumptions about global temperatures are hogwash.  Scientists do not know whether there will be a renewed warming trend or a cooling trend, but the available research shows the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is not the primary driver. As for sea level, the predicted increase appears considerably exaggerated. [As we noted in a 12/27/09 entry, even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change only projects a one foot rise in sea levels by 2100.]

7/22/10, A10, Wind power pitched to Obama: Govs. Markell, O’Malley encourage federal commitment, Aaron Nathans – The proposal letter asks the president to direct the Department of Defense and other designated federal agencies to commit to buying a gigawatt (enough to power about 300,000 homes) of offshore wind energy from the mid-Atlantic region, which would sell out the Bluewater project that is on the drawing board several times over and could supposedly “lead to the creation of up to 20,000 jobs.”

       Other goodies on the wish list: increasing loan guarantees, extending a production tax credit, and quickening the permitting process.

       Bluewater was supposedly not involved with the letter, but the company’s president is quoted that “we’re enthusiastic to respond to any solicitation or competition to provide power to the military and federal agencies.”

        [The ideas keep getting worse.  The government should buy the electricity it needs from the cheapest available sources, and wind power is not entitled to any support beyond a level playing field with alternative power sources – including nuclear plants.]

7/19/10, A10, Editorial: "We must overcome reliance on foreign oil" – Basically a plug for the energy bill [Cap-and-Tax lite] that Senator Carper is supporting, repeating most of Carper’s talking points.  Conclusion: “We think most Americans are ready for the kind of change Congress [or at least the Democratic members thereof] is talking about, including affordable electric cars.  It’s up to Congress to make it work.”

        [See our comments in the 7/16 entry: Additionally, we question whether a policy of energy independence would truly be in the national interest – even though politicians have been saying this since the 1970s.  No doubt “some of those petro dollars end up in the hands of terrorists,” but not most of them.  And oil imports would fall substantially if the government would just relax the array of restrictions that it has created to the development of unexploited U.S. oil and gas reserves.

Recall that international trade is of benefit to all concerned, contributing to global wealth.  What’s next, a U.S. ban on goods manufactured in China?  Level the playing field, enable U.S. firms to be competitive, and let the chips fall where they may.]

7/19/10, A10, Editorial cartoon depicting the “financial reform bill” as a cap on “Wall St. recklessness” – thereby likening it to the cap that has for now stopped the BP oil leak in Gulf –

with two members of Congress looking on.  “Let’s hope it works,” says one to the other.

        [Let's not forget the role of Barney Frank and other members of Congress who pushed lenders to sell homes to unqualified buyers.  Wouldn't it be great to see Representative Frank et al. on the “hot seat” at a Congressional hearing?

7/19/10, A7/A8, Solar pumps replacing windmills: More ranchers are abandoning old technology, Matt Joyce (AP) – In western states, beyond the range of power lines, farmers and ranchers have been using windmills to pump water for the past 150 years.  Now, however, with improving solar technology, “more and more Western ranchers are pulling them down and converting to solar-powered systems.”  The basic tradeoff is between initial investment (solar is more expensive) and maintenance costs (windmills have moving parts that require periodic replacement or servicing). Replacement decisions will typically be deferred so long as existing windmills are operable.

7/18/10, A21, Political cartoon – Nerdy man with a cap is sitting at a table on a low platform, under a Global Warming Deniers Club banner. “We will now be moving our meeting to the cooling center!” he says. A second man has fallen on his back, with feet pointed to the sky.

[Poking fun at deniers/skeptics/realists may seem fair, after fun was poked at alarmists during the cold winter.  However, there is a difference.  When there was no warming for several years, even though carbon dioxide continued to rise, the alarmists had some explaining to do.

Time will tell whether the extended hot spell corresponds to a resumption of the global warming trend that stalled about 10 years ago, but climate realists never claimed there has been no warming. We simply questioned a dubious theory, namely that global warming is being driven by the manmade buildup of C02 in the atmosphere.

After C02 reaches a certain level, it has no significant further effect on global temperatures.  The alarmists assume a positive feedback effect wherein a slight warming effect increases water evaporation, releasing more water vapor, the principal greenhouse gas.  The data do not support that assumption, but indicate a negative feedback.  In the tropics, when the temperature reaches a certain level, the high clouds disappear, allowing more heat to radiate from the Earth to space.

The global warming that has taken place since about 1800 is not unusual.  We are not yet as warm as conditions in the Medieval Warm Period, when grapes grew in England and there was farming in Greenland.  There have been alternate warm and cool periods throughout human history, which were probably due to changes in solar activity.]

7/18/10, D1, Delaware Inc. – Two of the three entries in this blog are written about wind energy, both by Aaron Nathans. 

“Offshore wind industry finally gets lobbying group” – It wasn’t enough to have one group representing wind power, so a new one has been organized to specifically represent offshore wind power.  “One of the group’s main focuses will be to shorten the permitting timeline for offshore wind projects,” an idea the News Journal has been pumping (see 7/15, 7/4 and 6/24 entries).  

“Task force meets in Lewes to discuss offshore wind issues.”  State and federal environmental officials get together to discuss “status of offshore wind matters,” notably whether a competitive auction will be required because there are now two firms (Bluewater and “the little-known Occidental Development & Equities of Bayonne, NJ”) with an interest in building renewable energy projects off the Delaware coast. [Hmm, competition for government subsidies, that could get confusing.]

7/17/10, A8, Closing 3 coal-fired boilers an environmental triumph – Editorial rehashes the news story on 7/16 of the shutdown of three of four reactors at the Indian River power plant and lauds the outcome.  Among other things, “the plan will cut carbon dioxide emissions by 50 percent and other pollutants by 80 to 90 percent.”  [No mention of how the power will be made up.  Also, one more time, CO2 is not a pollutant.]

7/16/10, A8, Obama lauds construction of car-battery plant in Mich.: President calls facility a symbol of revitalization of U. S. manufacturing, Julie Pace (AP) – “Our goal has never been to create a government program, but rather to unleash private-sector growth,” the president states at the groundbreaking. However, “this is the ninth factory to begin with the help of [federal government] economic stimulus money, in this case $2.4 billion.”  [Actually, we believe that this is the total for the program, and that the grant for the Compact Power plant was, as stated in a 7/15 News Journal story, $151 million or about half the cost of the plant.  In addition, buyers of electric-powered cars will receive tax credits.]  “This is a symbol of where America is going.” [We hope not!]

7/16/10, A18,  "Yet another Climate change report silences naysayers," David Martin – Letter writer labels Climategate a "momentary distraction" and cites "third independent investigation." which "again vindicated the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Center.”  He goes on to call global warming a “clear and present danger.”  Letter was prompted by news story on 7/8/10, A6.  [See our comments on that story, and also The Climategate Whitewash Continues, Patrick Michaels (Cato Institute), Wall Street Journal, 7/12/10, re chilling effect of scheme to ban climate realist research from peer-reviewed journals. http://bit.ly/9DbxbH.]

7/16/10, B1/B9, “NRG to shut off third boiler: Indian River plant pact promotes clean energy,” Jeff Montgomery - The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control has accepted NRG's proposal to permanently shut down its 155-Megawatt Unit 3 coal-burning boiler at the Indian River Plant in December 2013 without installing mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide controls that had previously been ordered by DNREC.  NRG will also mothball its two smallest and oldest generating units at the site.  NRG's 410-Megawatt coal-burning boiler, the most modern and largest unit, will continue operating.  [This appears to represent a formalization of the deal reported on 2/3/10.  The deal seems OK, but we are not in agreement with the assumption that the generation reduction will be made up by costly, undependable wind power.  Time to get serious about new nuclear power plants, or else build more gas power generators.] 

7/16/10, B1, Clean energy bill gets Carper’s support: Objective is to cut ties to foreign oil, Peter Urban (Gannett Washington Bureau) – Senator Carper is reportedly backing a scaled-back energy bill [do cap and tax in pieces rather than all at once] in the Senate, which would supposedly “save more than 8 billion barrels of oil per day when fully implemented by investing heavily in electric passenger cars, shifting cargo from trucks to trains and imposing higher fuel-efficiency standards on cars and trucks.”  [These ideas would be immensely costly.  They won’t work without massive government intervention, guaranteed to hurt the U.S. economy.]

Carper’s party says “long-term energy independence cannot be achieved through increased drilling at home because oil reserves here are not adequate to sustain the current demand.  Conservation and a shift to alternative energy sources is the only realistic option.” [Complete energy independence may not be possible, but  huge U.S. oil and gas reserves are not being exploited due to government restrictions, e.g., the ill advised Gulf oil-drilling moratorium.  Blaming the domestic production shortfall on declining reserves is disingenuous.]

7/15/10, A1/A6, Energy audits in limbo: Angry weatherization workers demand answers from officials: Mike Chalmers – Delaware already had a weatherization program (making qualifying participants’ houses more energy efficient at taxpayer expense), and substantial funding was included in the 2009 “economic stimulus” bill.  The state office administering the program was overwhelmed, and a federal audit found “gross mismanagement and potential fraudulent activity.”  It is planned to move the program to the Delaware Energy Office (overseen by DNREC), but in the meantime funding has been cut off and private contractors (some of whom underwent training to do the work) are upset.  The federal Department of Energy must approve a resumption of activity.  There are also reports that “some weatherization contractors are paying far less than the prevailing wage,” which could lead to complaints to the U.S. Department of Labor. [The real scandal is establishing the program in the first place.  Also, giveaway programs are seldom appreciated, and government activity breeds more government activity.]

7/15/10, A1/A7, Officials want wind regulated separately: Lawmakers fear delay in offshore projects: Nicole Guadiano – Prior reports [7/4 and 6/24] noted that the Bluewater offshore wind farm project could be slowed by federal red tape.  Now a solution has been proposed, backed by all three members of Congress from Delaware: the U.S. Interior Department would “temporarily create a special office to regulate offshore wind.”  [As far as we are concerned, there is no reason to arrange fast track approval for wind power projects, while oil drilling, shale gas drilling (next story), nuclear power plants, dredging of the Delaware River, etc. are studied to death.  What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander.”]  

7/15/10, A7, Panel sets more hearings on gas drilling in basin, AP – A new extraction technique called hydraulic fracturing has opened up vast shale oil gas reserves, such as the Marcellus Shale formation.  Power generated with natural gas is cleaner than coal power, but environmentalists are pushing for regulatory delays and restrictions with some success.  Thus, the Delaware River Basin Commission has declared a moratorium on natural gas drilling deep below the river basin, which in May was extended to exploratory drilling.

       At a 7/14 hearing, the environmentalists squared off against the drilling companies, land owners, etc.  The DRBC relented to the extent of voting to allow two new exploratory wells in Wayne County, PA, and its proposed regulations will be forthcoming later in the summer.  [Hard to tell how this will play out, but we would be inclined to side with the drillers.]

7/15/10, A9, White House promotes electric cars: Administration to show stimulus dollars at work: Ken Thomas – Several examples are cited, including the president’s trip today to Holland, Michigan for the groundbreaking of a Compact Power, Inc. factory to manufacture lithium ion cells.  Cost of plant, $303 million: received from federal stimulus program, $151 million.  [Shovel out enough federal money and you can get people to do almost anything, but what about the drag on other economic activity that is being taxed to pay for these handouts?]

7/15/10, A10, We can put worries about nuclear energy safety to bed, Ben Corballis, Wilmington – The writer reacts to the 2+ page headline story on 7/11/10, which greatly exaggerated the risks of expanding the nuclear power plants in the area.  Are there risks?  Of course, but “all life is risky” – including flying, driving, etc.  Energy is needed, and “we must not let scare tactics, such as recent news, keep us from using an excellent resource already available – nuclear energy.”

7/14/10, A11, New power supplier touts savings, clean energy, Aaron Nathans – Clean Currents of Rockville, MD was recently certified as a competitive electricity supplier n Delaware.  The firm reportedly plans to offer “fifty percent wind” electricity at lower rates than Delmarva Power.  [Cheaper power is fine, but not when it is based on the award of renewable energy credits to wind farm developers – i.e., taxpayer subsidies for an undependable, uneconomic form of energy.]

7/14/10, B1/B2, “Hearing airs cases for, against dredging of river: Project would deepen Delaware’s channel to 45 feet,” Jeff Montgomery – Another public hearing in Dover on plans to deepen the Delaware River shipping channel, and as the article says the same arguments are being made.  Generalized environmental claims of potential damage, which the U.S. Corps of Engineers has supposedly failed to rebut, versus the economic reality that a deeper shipping channel is needed to keep area ports competitive.  “Both sides staked out the same territory in December 2001.” [See our comments on the 4/6/10 story.  This sort of unreasonable, closed-mind environmentalism is a growing threat to the regional and U.S. economy.]

7/13/10, A8, from letters to the editor: – Carol Vanela of Avondale fires back at a 7/11 letter that “Continual hysteria about earth’s future is intolerable” or any other criticism of the “liberal” agenda.  “Science . . . makes clear that the earth is in peril.  That issue is no longer in dispute.  The only thing left to argue is who is responsible and what to do about it.”  [Wonder why climate alarmists are so keen on cutting off discussion of their unproven theories.]

        Simon Miller, New Castle, derides volunteers who spend an hour “saving a pelican from the deadly Gulf oil [spill]” and then “have other birds for dinner for dinner at local fast-food outlets.”  Apparently, they forget that “meat and dairy harm the environment and their family’s health.” [Get it, Big Brother (or Sister) should tell us what to eat because, left to our own devices, we will make the wrong choices.]

7/11/10, A1/A6-7, "Nuclear growth puts region at risk: With nine reactors 40 miles or less from Delaware, proposals to build more make safety a real concern," Jeff Montgomery – The biggest article in the Sunday newspaper, taking up about 40% of the front page (including a foreboding picture of the Salem-Hope Creek Station taken from our side of the Delaware River) plus two inside pages, with no real news to report except that several additional reactors at existing sites are in the early planning stage. [The May 5 public hearing in New Jersey was not covered by the News Journal, see our 5/13 entry.]

Area residents were interviewed for the story, including Julie Harrington in Port Penn, Dae Kwak in Hockessin, and Carl Cook in Middletown, all whom are “surrounded by nuclear reactors” in that “nine reactors stand 40 miles or less from Delaware’s border.” Maps are provided of the 10, 20 and 50-mile circles around these facilities.  The psychological effect of periodic drills based on these “danger” zones is noted:  “Reminders of nuclear power’s risk keep popping up, however, when the plant tests its emergency sirens or officials distribute the potassium iodide tablets residents are supposed to take in the event of a serious radiation leak.”

Officials of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) say “past studies painted too scary a picture” and the chances of a truly dangerous incident are remote, but this does not seem to satisfy the alarmists.  Thus, Michele Boyd, with Physicians for Social Responsibility, “said the nuclear industry and government are simply understating the likelihood of a major accident or act of sabotage.”  Just look at the Gulf oil spill, which wasn’t expected to happen either.

 “Nuclear has plenty of interest and friends in Delaware,” it is said. One of them is Senator Tom Carper, who, however, (a) believes nuclear power requires strong safety standards and aggressive oversight by the NRC, and (b) acknowledges that the Salem/Hope Creek plant have had a “checkered past.”

When is something actually likely to happen?  “PSEG has tentatively set 2021 as a startup date for a new reactor, following a five to seven year construction period.”

[This is outrageous, a front-page article, obviously attempting, on the flimsiest grounds, to foster opposition to one or two additional reactors at Salem/Hope Creek.  If the country escapes a financial disaster, it will need additional capacity for electricity from nuclear power, the safest, economical, dependable source (unless nuclear power gets buried in regulatory red tape, which could easily happen).

About the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents, which are of course mentioned.  Nobody died at Three Mile Island.  Chernobyl was an unsafe design, and run badly, yet the number of people killed was fewer than those killed in a week of auto accidents in this country.  U.S. nuclear plants were orders of magnitude safer than Chernobyl at the time, and they have been improved greatly since.

The 10-mile and 50-mile radii around nuclear plants serve no useful purpose and amount to a PR scheme.  Jeff Montgomery is a skillful, productive reporter.  Unfortunately, he is in league with zealots who remain stuck in the nuclear superstitions of the last century.

Here's a parallel to such articles:  Delawareans remain trapped in dwellings only a few yards from roads where automotive behemoths run at speeds guaranteed to crush anyone who stands in the way.  Over 100 Americans are killed each day by these machines that are used mainly so that people can waste their lives spending time to get where they work, away from hearth and home.  So why not ban cars and require everyone to ride bicycles?]

7/11/10, A7, “As president touts green power, plants launch a ‘nuclear renaissance,’” Jeff Montgomery – In a shorter companion article, Montgomery questions the reality of proposals for what some have dubbed as a “nuclear renaissance” – even though “President Obama and the federal government have become increasingly supportive of nuclear.”  [However, the Yucca Mountain national waste repository is no longer being supported, and there is no agreed alternative procedure for the long-term disposition of nuclear waste – an issue that must be resolved before any more nuclear power plants can realistically be built in this country.]

            High initial cost: “estimated reactor costs range as high as $8 billion each,” and nuclear firms are angling for “taxpayer-backed loan guarantees to make [their projects] work.” [We disapprove of these or any other form of energy subsidy.]

            It is hoped that “nuclear power will be perceived as a greener power source than coal, overcoming opposition from environmental groups,” but this may not happen.  Thus, John Byrne of the University of Delaware is quoted to the effect that “investments in big new generators [producing inexpensive power] would only prop up and increase energy use, rather than improve efficiency and conservation.” 

            And Peter Bradford, a former NRC commissioner, points to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as “reason enough to keep regulations and risk reviews tough.”  

              [This is not how America put a man on the moon in 10 years, built the Panama Canal, etc.  If nuclear power is going to play its proper role in the energy picture, there must be a major shift in the current mindset – and a willingness to try new things, such as smaller reactors and nuclear waste recycling.]

7/11/10, A13, “Energy & Votes, paid advertisement by Daniel G. Anderson [a real estate developer based in Rehoboth Beach] – This half-page political ad covers a lot of ground, among other things accusing the Administration of “waging a constant war” against the least expensive of the country’s energy sources, e.g., coal and oil, and seeking to “replace them with alternative energy sources, i.e., wind power, grain power [ethanol], perhaps nuclear power, thus creating ‘green’ jobs.”  [Some points seem overstated, and the call for action is political, but on the whole this is a good summary of what is wrong (and has been wrong for decades) with U.S. energy policy.  Too bad that Mr. Anderson has to pay for coverage of his viewpoint, while the other side gets nonstop coverage for free.]

7/11/10, A20, “Continual hysteria about earth’s future is intolerable,” Jack Clymer, Newark – The writer chronicles “save the world” scares over the past 40 odd years: acid rain – hole in the ozone – global warming, now known as climate change.  “Anyone with an ounce of sense knows this [global warming] scare is a hoax,” and “the continuous hysteria from the left is not funny anymore.”  There are very real problems in this country, and “we do not have the time or money to waste trying to fight another nonexistent bogeyman.” 

7/10/10, A9, "Climate change skeptics are in denial: Accepting reality is key to debating policy," Eugene Robinson -  Columnist Eugene Robinson apparently does not know that the present warm period is far from unique, so we are mailing him the following letter:

Dear Mr. Robinson: Re your column in the 7/10/10 Wilmington DE News Journal, almost everyone agrees that the Earth has been getting warmer as we recover from the Little Ice Age. The important question is whether carbon dioxide is a major  cause.  About 31,000 scientists have signed a petition agreeing that it is not.

The present warm period is not unique.  Between major ice ages, there are alternating warm and cool periods.  The Medieval Warm Period, which preceded the Little Ice Age, was appreciably warmer than the present warm period, even though the carbon dioxide level was lower than today.

Evidence that it was warmer during the Medieval period includes the fact that there was farming in Greenland, and that grapes were grown in England and elsewhere at locations too cool now for grape growing.

What causes the alternating warm and cool periods?  The cause appears to be changes in the output of the Sun.  ("The Chilling Stars", 2007 book by Svensmark & Calder.)

In case you'd like to explore this issue further, I believe the Heartland Institute of Chicago is a good source.

A chart is enclosed showing temperature vs. time for three ice ages and the intervening periods. Very truly yours, William E. Morris, Climate Common Sense

7/10/10, A8, Science doesn’t support Al Gore’s view of warming, Arlen D. Besel, Elkton, MD –

Al Gore likes the word “unequivocal,” but the writer suggests a different use for it: “Science unequivocally shows that CO2 is not the cause of global warming, but the result.”  Why?  (1) Climate stopped warming in 2002 or earlier; (2) CO2 increases follow temperature increases by as much as 800 years and solar activity is the primary driver in climate change; (3) CO2 is a plant nutrient, not a pollutant; (4) Possible deaths in developing countries without inexpensive electrical power; (5) 31,000 scientists signed petition to stop cap-and-trade activity; (6) Global warming leaders are making millions by their actions.  [Sounds about right.  Careful about (1), though, because the warming trend could resume.]

7/9/10, A14, Recent NRC reports verify global warming’s reality, Chad Tolman, Wilmington –

Tolman lauds the 6/27 column of Professor Jonathan Sharp and decries what he calls “a great deal of confusion and misinformation in the public discussion of the issues.”  He names the National Research Council of the U.S. National academies as “one of the most reliable sources of scientific information,” cites three recently issued climate change studies (“Advancing the Science,” “Limiting the Magnitude,” and “Adapting to the Impacts”), and provides a link to “an informative presentation by the chairs of the study panels.” 

       [We did not choose to watch the 59-minute NRC video, but for those who may be so inclined here is a shortened link. http://bit.ly/d29805.  For earlier statements by Tolman, see the 3/13/10, 2/27/10 and 1/22/10 entries.]

7/8/10, A6,  "Science vindicated again on so-called Climategate,” Raphael Satter (AP) – An independent British report by Muir Russell, former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Glasgow, "found there was no evidence of dishonesty or corruption" in the Climategate e-mails.  This was “the third major probe of the e-mails,” [none of which have reported evidence of outright fraud.]  However, Russell did “chide the scientists involved for failing to share their data with critics” and for condoning “a trick” that resulted in a “misleading” graph.

John Burns, "distinguished professor of energy and climate policy" at the University of Delaware, is quoted as hoping “the report will put the focus back on the science.  We're storing too much carbon in the atmosphere," he states, and the assessments of the manmade global warming theorists “if anything, are conservative in their conclusions.”

[The real Climategate scandal is not outright fraud, it is the subversion of the spirit of open scientific inquiry, and we have heard nothing to indicate that Phil Jones et al. are repentant.  Do they now plan to welcome publication in peer-reviewed journals by climate realists?  Will they admit facts that are inconvenient to the manmade global warming theory, such as the existence of the Medieval Warm Period or the urban heat island effect that has tainted surface level temperature readings (dictating reliance on more accurate NASA temperature data)?

Will Professor Burns demonstrate the sincerity of his concern about CO2 by advocating quicker development of nuclear power plants?  We are not holding our breath.]

7/5/10, A13,  "In Lewes, future of energy comes with the wind," Daniel Schneckenburger (a member of the News Journal’s advisory board) – The writer expresses his enthusiasm for wind power as “a viable [renewable] energy source, a research tool and a symbol of oil independence for the East Coast.”   He ends the column with: "What is the best solution for gaining our independence from oil, much of it provided by foreign sources?  The answer is blowing in the wind."

7/4/10, D1/D3, "Fisker's course uncertain, but Tesla IPO offers beacon," Jonathan Starkey - Tesla Motors raised $202 million this week from an initial public offering and Fisker (which is committed to buy the former GM plant on Boxwood Road) has raised over $300 million from private investors.  Each company has also received about $500 million loans from the federal government.  However, “several questions linger” about the future for “luxury electric car makers” like Tesla (“makes a $109,000 electric Roadster, but has yet to turn a profit”) and Fisker (“has yet to deliver its first product, the $88,000 Karma plug-in hybrid sports sedan to customers”).  Not to mention competition from much lower priced electric cars to be offered by other companies.  Including pictures of the Tesla and Fisker cars, this article takes up about 40% of the first page of the business section – or 50% if one throws in the wind power story.

[These federal government loans are a spectacularly bad idea, especially when the federal government is in a deep fiscal hole.  So is other meddling in the automotive market (e.g., steadily tightening fleet mileage standards) and energy market (e.g., subsidies and mandates to force increasing use of more costly “renewable energy”) that is going on.  Let’s wake up and demand that the federal and state governments discontinue these ill-advised policies so the free market can work its magic.]

7/4/10, D1/D6, "Offshore wind farm hits EPA roadblock: Project could be delayed till next year," Aaron Nathans – “Who knew an offshore wind farm project could get tangled up over air pollution emissions?”  NRG-Bluewater Wind wants to erect a meteorological tower to record wind speed and bird flight patterns, but this part of the project is being delayed by an EPA request (or demand) for information on how much pollution will be emitted by a boat to be used in building the tower.

[Seems the environmentalists are being “hoist by their own petard.”  Good!  The greater the delay, the greater the chance that the public will not be saddled with expensive, undependable wind power.  See also our 6/24 entry re an earlier story attributing the permitting delay to bureaucratic turmoil in the wake of the Gulf oil spill.]

7/3/10, A1/A4, "Forecast shows no relief in sight," Jeff Montgomery – Story, including big photo of a dusty field being prepared for planting under a “With drought declared, more dry, scorching weather on the way” caption, takes up about 1/3 of the front page. The forecast for the 4th of July is a hot one [coming after several days of truly delightful temperatures], readers are informed, and “federal climate agencies officially declared portions of the Delmarva Peninsula, including southernmost Sussex County, to be in drought.”  Energy meters will be spinning – late peas “burnt up” – jet stream kept well to the north in recent months – record temperatures – only about 2/3 of normal rain over the past 90 days – keeping daycare children inside – “local cooling centers for seniors – “Code Orange” smog and soot conditions alert.  David Robinson, the New Jersey State Climatologist, said “global and local long-term average temperatures appear to be slowly rising” although “he cautioned against attributing any single year's local records or short-term extremes to climate change and the debate over control of heat-trapping pollutants called greenhouse gases."

[When it’s hot, alarmists think global warming.  When it’s cold, that’s just weather. The concerns in this story seem obviously overstated, and we think it more than a coincidence that Jeff Montgomery never seems to call Dr. David Legates, the Delaware State Climatologist.]

6/27/10, A29, "It's real: Denying global warming is not an option,” Jonathan Sharp (UD Professor of Oceanography) – There has been “an aggressive campaign to convince the public that climate change is not an important problem,” this column claims, and the media “can be faulted in their failure to be more discriminating in their presentation of opinion and news.” [If anything, the shoe is on the other foot.  Media coverage over the past several decades has relentlessly publicized the manmade global warming theory, as shown by four other stories in today’s edition, while largely ignoring the evidence against it.]

But remember, “most environmental scientists who have studied the evidence conclude that the Earth is warming and that human contributions of excess greenhouse gases are, at least partially, the reason for the warming.” [This is not saying much.  How much warming over what time period, who says what level of greenhouse gases is “excess,” and what does “at least partially” mean?]

“The issue is not just global warming,” and “as we are seeing today, offshore oil drilling can have disastrous consequences.” [Climate alarmists will keep coming up with new arguments for their preconceived conclusion and hope that something sticks.]

        So let’s all support a “massive new energy policy in this country,” which can generate “an economic boon [sic] as well as an environmental salvation.” [Reputable studies indicate that the “cap and tax” policy that is on offer would have seriously detrimental effects on the economy.]

[If Sharp were really serious about his belief that warming will resume and have devastating effects, and that CO2 is a major contributor, he should be pushing for the construction of new nuclear power plants.  No CO2 involved, and such plants would be safe, inexpensive, and dependable.  But there is no mention of nuclear power in this rather long column.]

6/27/10, A21 "Future uncertain for US polar bears” Dan Joling (AP) – “Federal officials have declared that the Endangered Species Act will not be used in the attempt to regulate greenhouse gases, which contribute to global warming and melting ice in the Arctic Ocean.”  [Environmentalists are planning a court challenge to the ruling, natch.] However, the Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed designating 187,966 square miles of U.S. territory – 95% of it the Beaufort and Chukchi seas – as “polar bear critical habitat.”  Environmentalists like this idea, because it would create one more opportunity to fight offshore oil drilling.  “Alaskans on the other side of the issue are bewildered over why the agency is bothering to designate critical habitat for polar bears.  The proposal covers an area larger than California.”

        [We have nothing against polar bears, but they are not in danger of extinction.  These bears are considerably more numerous than they were in 1970s, and they are highly adaptable.  We understand they can swim over 100 miles.]

6/27/10, B1/B4, Votes due on green energy measures: Markell administration pushes “ambitious” bills, Jeff Montgomery – Three different pieces of legislation are proposed, which would generally push ahead with government mandates/ subsidies for “renewable energy.”  However, one of the bills would require “consideration of less costly home improvements, such as insulation and more efficient appliances, before the receipt of subsidies from some green-energy programs.”  [As we see it, these mandate and subsidy programs should be discontinued.  They do not make economic sense, nor can the state government afford to continue supporting them.]

6/27/10, B1/B4, Offshore oil drilling protested worldwide: Opponents join hands on Del. beaches, Molly Murray – “Dozens of people joined hands from Bowers Beach south to Dewey Saturday to oppose offshore oil drilling and promote the use of clean energy.”  One of the participants explained in an interview that she did not plan to stop driving a car, watching TV or running her air conditioner.  It’s about coming up with sustainable, alternative energy, which she likened to “having your cake and eating it too.”  Similar demonstrations were held “across the United States and in foreign countries and at noon – to show solidarity – everyone joined hands in a silent protest.”  [However irrational, these demonstrations are brilliant PR for the environmentalist agenda.  It’s hard to see what climate realists can do to counter them, but we need to come up with something.]

6/27/10, F1/F6, Going green, but keeping a piece of history intact, Jonathan Starkey – Mounts are being used to install solar panels on the flat roof of the Bourse Building in Philadelphia, which once housed the first U.S. commodities exchange and has now been converted into a shopping and office space complex.  The roof does not need to be replaced, and the mounts don’t have to be bolted into the roof (which could cause structural damage).  The mounts are made and installed by Solar Dock, a subsidiary of a Wilmington real estate development firm (The McConnell Companies). [Hmm, wonder why this story is considered newsworthy.]

6/24, A5, "Bluewater deadline extended: Date to make commitment to offshore wind project delayed due to Gulf spill,” Aaron Nathans – Delmarva Power has granted NRG Bluewater an extension of a contractual deadline to be committed to a $6 million penalty if it ultimately pulls out of the contract.  Discussion of this and other matters “could put the completion date [for the project] past the current target of 2014.”  Bluewater attributes the delay to “bureaucratic turmoil in the wake of the Gulf oil spill.”  [We suspect the delay has more to do with growing public resistance to rising taxes and higher power costs than with the Gulf oil spill.  In any case, it could not be clearer that the Bluewater project is dependent on massive government support (via mandates and subsidies).  More electricity will be needed in years to come, and Delmarva should be encouraged to contract for it from cheaper, more dependable sources.]

6/24/10, B1, "Salem-Hope Creek safety drill trips up states: N.J. will have to redo nuclear exercise, Jeff Montgomery - Both New Jersey and Delaware made mistakes in a six-year readiness exercise, according to federal authorities, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency ordered a state do-over (in July) for two New Jersey counties.  The exercise was based on a hypothetical scenario of “a radiation plume crossing the Delaware River and state.”  

[Anti-nuclear zealots succeeded in getting 10-mile and 50- mile zones established years ago.  The 10-mile radius defines an "evacuation potential" zone, and the 50-mile radius is used to "develop safeguards against direct contamination or consumption of radioactive food or water."

In our opinion, this concern about “worst case” events is excessive.  Remember that no one died as a result of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, the worst nuclear power accident in U.S. history, while there have been many deaths in connection with other energy sector accidents and roughly 40,000 Americans are killed every year in automobile accidents.]

6/20/10, A27, Make Gulf spill an impetus for a new national energy policy, [Senator] Ted Kaufman – Delaware’s junior senator claims there is “an urgent need to end our reliance on oil and other fossil fuels,” as “we should have learned in the 1970s, when an energy crisis crippled the country.”  The solution, he says, is to accelerate development of “clean technology that will create a new generation of clean energy jobs, ensure a strong economic future and greatly enhance our national security.” 

            [The BP oil spill was an unfortunate accident, but it does not warrant the radical plan that is being proposed.  Also, the moratorium on offshore drilling, etc. will put many people out of work and drive up energy costs for the rest of us, quite unnecessarily.

            A far more urgent need, in our opinion, is for the government to get over its reliance on deficit spending, which is driving this nation towards a financial meltdown of epic proportions.  There has been no comment from Senator Kaufman on this issue, which will be revisited in detail in the 6/21/10 blog entry. http://www.s-a-f-e.org/blog.htm

            As for oil, the U.S. and overseas oil producers both benefit when the U.S. buys the oil it needs.  However, more of our oil could be produced domestically if the federal government removed unnecessary restrictions on the production of oil from Alaska and elsewhere.

            Coal probably will be phased out as a power source over time, although a crash program is not needed and would be very costly.  The leading contender to replace coal power is nuclear power, if regulatory requirements for reprocessing nuclear fuel and building new facilities can be appropriately streamlined.  The principal obstacle to progress is the opposition of environmentalists who are stuck in nuclear superstitions of the last century.  As a former engineer, Senator Kaufman should be pushing for the expansion of nuclear power, which is dependable, economical and safe – but the subject is not mentioned in his column.

            Wind and solar power are undependable, and they should be charged for the backup energy sources and alternative transmission systems that they would require.  This country cannot afford to continue mandating and/or subsidizing these uneconomical power sources.]

6/17/10, A2, Obama wins apology, $20 billion from BP: Oil company won’t control fund for Gulf damages, Jennifer Loven (AP) – Details of the fund extorted from BP are recited as “the first big success Obama has been able to give to Gulf residents and the nation,” but “by no means a cap.”  It is also stated that “it won’t be a government fund,” even though the fund will be administered by the Administration’s “pay czar,” Kenneth Feinberg, who previously oversaw the $7 billion government fund for families of victims of the 9/11 attack. [This arrangement will be an unmitigated disaster for BP, which will surely be subjected to a deluge of legal claims after the $20 billion fund is exhausted and may not survive as a company.  We find it hard to view this outcome as a “big success” for anyone.]

6/17/10, A15, Time for new energy policy is right now, Jennifer Mihills (Delaware Nature Society) – “America’s dependence on oil and other fossil fuels imperils our environment.  The Senate must take action this year to reduce this dependence on dirty fuels.”  [We agree with the title of this column, but not much else.  (1) The rhetoric is overstated, e.g., “Gulf disaster” and “irrevocable damage.”  Although the current situation is serious, nature will recover as it has done before (e.g., after the intentional oil spill in the Persian Gulf at the start of the Gulf War in 1991). (2) The Gulf oil spill is not due to Americans “dependence on oil” so much as industry and governmental failures.  (3) The economic effects of proposed energy legislation, e.g., a cap-and-tax regime, could prove considerably more serious and long lasting than the environmental damage.  (4) Nuclear power is not mentioned, but the country needs it now because it is dependable, safe and economical.  Even though nuclear power produces no CO2, however, many environmental groups seem stuck in the nuclear superstitions of the last century causing them to continue to oppose nuclear power.]

6/16/10, A1/A2, Obama: “We will make BP pay”: President pledges to restore Gulf in address to nation, Jennifer Loven (AP) – accused BP of “recklessness” – long-term Gulf Coast Restoration Plan – sure to be in the billions of dollars – would “inform” [BP executives] that the company must set aside whatever resources are required – urged the nation and Congress to get behind his goal of sweeping energy and climate change legislation.  [This speech was predictable and to a large extent misguided.  See 6/14 and 6/7 entries in SAFE blog. http://www.s-a-f-e.org/blog.htm.]

6/16/10, A2, Caper, Kaufman applaud Obama’s vows – Senator Kaufman’s statement concentrated on holding BP accountable including ensuring that “Gulf Coast residents whose economic livelihoods have been affected by the spill will be fully compensated.”

He also attributed the oil spill to “failures resulting from past deregulation,” which “deregulatory mindset in this country allowed irresponsible industry players like BP to take ‘shortcuts,’ putting our nation at tremendous risk.”  Senator Carper’s statement “focused on Obama’s call for enactment of measures to spur development of non-carbon fuels.”  Representative Mike Castle “did not issue a statement following the speech.” [Judging from these reactions, we have a long way to go in our educational efforts.]

6/13/10, BI/B5, “Del. raises $2.1M from CO2: Regional initiative ending pollution’s free ride, Jeff Montgomery – This article rehashes a 3/14 article (also written by Jeff Montgomery), “Del. gains $2 million in carbon credit sale.”  Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) – DE has received $16M so far [$13.9M in the previous article], “nearly all of it earmarked for energy efficiency and conservation programs or aid for clean energy activities” – “scientists say” manmade global warming a big threat – UN call for 80% reduction in Carbon Dioxide emissions by 2050 “to avert the worst consequences of global warming” – EPA endangerment finding. For unexplained reasons, however, Congress is “squabbling over federal authority to regulate [CO2].”  Also, a leader for the new Delaware City refinery, PBF Energy CEO Thomas O’Malley, says it is “idiotic to basically force people out of business here in the United States with CO2 legislation, and then import the oil products from India, from the Middle East, from China.”

        [Right on Mr. O’Malley, but we would like to go a step further and remind area governors of their childhoods when they said to their mothers, “If Johnny can do it, why can’t I?”  The reply was generally along the lines that “If Johnny jumped off a cliff, would you follow him?”  California has jumped off more than one cliff in its time, but for the RGGI states this is unnecessary silliness – they should be more sensible than California.

       CO2 is a beneficial gas.  Plants love it.  Even if warming will resume, it may not be harmful, and in any case real world evidence does not show CO2 is a major factor.

6/11/10, A3, “Senate squelches GOP bid to limit EPA air standards: Six Democrats join Republican effort,” Jim Abrams (AP) – By a 53-47 vote, the Senate rejected a resolution to stop the EPA from moving ahead with proposed regulations based on limiting CO2 emissions as a “pollutant” under the Clean Air Act.  The vote is described as “a signal of where lawmakers stand on dealing with climate change,” i.e., how they are likely to vote on the American Power Act (a cap-and-tax proposal rather similar to the House energy bill that was passed a year ago).  Delaware’s two senators (Tom Carper and Ted Kaufman) voted against the resolution.

        [Carper and Kaufman should know better.  It is simply not true that CO2 is the main driver of global warming (assuming a warming trend will resume, which is far from certain).  Hopefully, the APA can be blocked (it only takes 41 votes) for now.  After the November elections, Congress may be even less disposed to proceed with the demonization of this beneficial gas, and perhaps another run can be taken at the EPA regulations.]

6/8/10, A1/A4,  "Harnessing the sun—cheaply," Jonathan Starkey –The DuPont Company has opened a new solar power lab at Chestnut Run, outside of Wilmington, similar to labs in Switzerland and China.  Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), and dozens of others joined DuPont CEO at an “elaborate, hours-long ribbon cutting Monday afternoon to laud the company’s efforts to boost research into renewable energy development.”  Reportedly, “the goal of the research is to make solar power competitive with carbon-sourced electricity.”  To which end, a state panel “recently approved a Delaware Strategic Fund grant of up to $240,000.”

[We have nothing against solar power if it is economically competitive, but the state grant is just the tip of the iceberg. The main government handout is subsidies for solar power installation – which a federal government teetering on the fiscal brink can ill afford – and mandates for rising purchases (whether economic or not) of “green” energy by power companies.  Instead of such measures, how about removing government roadblocks and letting the free market decide what form(s) of energy are most economic?]

6/8/10, A3, "Worker dead in natural gas line blast in Texas" - Brief item on the third page would have been much larger and on the front page if this had been a nuclear plant accident.

6/8/10, A8, “We should be considering more sources of fossil fuels” – Letter from SAFE member Harry Kenton, points out that environmentalists have done a lot of damage by blocking the growth of nuclear power and on-land oil drilling based on “their dreamy myth” that wind, solar, etc. is all we need.  http://www.s-a-f-e.org/letters.htm

6/5/10, A1/A5, Oil disaster stretches to Fla., AP – Sensationalized reporting of the Gulf oil spill continues, including lines such as these: “The oil has now reached the shores of four Gulf states – Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida – turning its marshlands into death zones for wildlife and staining its beaches rust and crimson in an affliction that some said brought to mind the plagues and punishments of the Bible.” [Beware a shortsighted backlash against the oil industry, which could put a cap and tax bill over the top.  Stay tuned for the 6/7/10 entry in our main blog: http://www.s-a-f-e.org/blog.htm]

6/5/10, A8, “Some simple research to prevent future catastrophes,” Steve Senderoff, Wilmington – A letter writer points out historical record of oil spills, concluding that "any educated person can see a recipe for continuing disasters if we do not implement major government regulation of the industry." [To paraphrase Justice John Marshall,  “the power to regulate is the power to destroy.”  We reach a quite different conclusion from the historical record in the 6/7/10 entry on our main blog: http://www.s-a-f-e.org/blog.htm]

6/1/10, A5, "Producers of biodiesel in limbo: Industry presses Congress on crucial tax credit," Parker Leavitt (Content One) – For the second day in a row, the News Journal headline story in the business section is about energy tax credits, this time a $1 a gallon tax credit to small biodiesel producers that Congress has been slow to renew.  Biodiesel is “a clean-burning fuel made primarily from used vegetable oil.”  One biodiesel investor is quoted that “if the credit does not pass, the industry is gone.”  In other words, biodiesel cannot compete with petroleum-based motor fuel on a level playing field – and biodiesel producers are looking for this credit to be provided indefinitely.

 [Many would agree that government support of favored industries is problematic.  We say it is wrong.  Three cheers for Congressman Jeff Flake (R-AZ).  In reply to an e-mail seeking support for renewal of the incentive, Flake wrote, "I don't think Congress should attempt to pick winners and losers by allowing tax incentives for one form of energy over another." (That implies wind turbines, solar panels etc. vs. fossil fuel and nuclear, as well as “green” motor fuels vs. gasoline.)

5/31/10, A11, "No wait for that solar rebate: Residential projects are first in line for stimulus funds," Aaron Nathans - Using $1.3 million in federal "stimulus" funds, Delaware will clear up a rebate waiting list for residential solar panel installation.  The $1.3 million will be supplemented by the state of Delaware, which also gives rebates for geothermal and small wind projects.

[What is wrong with this picture?  Plenty!  First, the federal government is in a big fiscal hole and still digging.  To protect the next generation, the federal government should cut spending and start paying off debt.  The misnamed "stimulus" program should stop ASAP, in favor of efforts to make it easier for business to form, expand and hire workers.

Subsidies of solar panels and wind turbines are being justified on the basis of replacement of power sources that emit carbon dioxide.  It is not clear that global warming is occurring, not clear that warming is bad, and not clear that carbon dioxide is causing warming.  Even if all of these propositions were true, the solution would still be to accelerate the expansion of nuclear power, which is economical, safe and dependable.  See "Terrestrial Energy,” a book by William Tucker.]

5/29/10, A8, “History’s warm periods have been well documented, John Greer – A CCS response to an earlier letter from Paul Donohue [A5] who castigated “global warming deniers for repeating “common untruths” without providing references.  Greer’s letter provides numerous sources for the Medieval Warm Period, the discrediting of the “Hockey Stick” graph concocted in an attempt to hide the inconvenient facts that it was hotter 1000 years ago than it is now, and techniques that have tended to overstate the observed warming trend during the 20^th Century.  Good job!

5/28/10, A12, “Environmentalists and White House share blame for Gulf fiasco,” Charles Krauthammer – According to this column, environmental opposition to drilling in less technically challenging and/or less vulnerable areas has led to deep water drilling (under some 5,000 feet of water) in a center for fishing and tourism.  Why not drill in shallower waters off the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts or in Alaska?  But alas, Obama’s tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is “now dead.”  Krauthammer goes on to skewer BP (series of engineering lapses, no planning for contingencies), federal officials (“laxity in environmental permitting and safety oversight”), and the president for condemning finger pointing while trying to blame his predecessor.

        [It will be a tough sell, but the U.S. needs to develop its oil resources as an alternative to importing more and more oil from abroad to power motor vehicles that keep the country going.  That includes oil obtained from deep oil drilling, which is being done because there is a lot of oil to be had on a cost competitive basis.  The causes of the BP disaster need to be studied in depth – as they no doubt will be – including appropriate changes in regulatory practices.  But the “just say no” approach to regulation would be a big mistake, and to the extent that Krauthammer is suggesting otherwise we disagree with him.

       When overblown environmental demands are given in to, e.g., by imposing a de facto national ban on new nuclear plants after the Three Mile Island meltdown, the long-term effects are not just bad for the economy.  They also have negative environmental effects.  By blocking nuclear power plants, for example, the environmentalists promoted the construction of more coal power plants (which produce a substantial volume of real pollutants, as well as harmless CO2 that many environmentalists also abhor).  It’s high time to collapse the ridiculous delays in putting nuclear power on stream so that coming generations can have inexpensive, dependable electricity.]

5/26/10, B3, "PSEG nuclear files for site permit," Jeff Montgomery – The application is for approval of the proposed site for a fourth reactor at the Salem-Hope Creek complex across the river.  It runs 4,000 pages, and has been under development for 2-1/2 years.  Federal officials of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission expect to take up to 3 years to review the application, and then, if they approve it, PSEG may proceed to seek approval to actually build and operate a nuclear plant.

[This paperwork obstacle course may seem ridiculous, particularly when all that is involved is the addition of another reactor at an existing nuclear site.  But it is the logical result of diehard opposition by the Sierra Club and likeminded groups. And the director of the Sierra Club in New Jersey, who is quoted extensively in the article, claims nuclear power costs "more than 13 times as much as wind power.” It's a shame that the nuclear industry and the rest of us have to put up with such claptrap.  Ironically, the success of the Sierra Club et al. in blocking the expansion of nuclear power has resulted in building more coal power plants to supply the electricity that is needed.  Looks like they will try to keep doing it.]

5/24/10, A6 "Plugging into clean energy: New initiatives being rolled out to help Delaware consumers," Aaron Nathans – This article (complete with a large cartoon, in color), applauds the Sustainable Energy Utility (SEU) for making loans and grants in the interest of energy efficiency.  Late in the article, we read:  "The SEU gets its own money from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which is a cap-and-trade system - " Also, SEU is applying for federal stimulus funds.

[First, energy efficiency decisions should be made on a cost basis, not on the basis of supposedly averting climate change.  The manmade global warming theory is unproven, and it is looking increasingly dubious.

5/23/10, G6, "National park's namesake fast disappearing: Glacier National Park - celebrating its 100th year - visually makes the case for climate change," Nicholas Geranos (AP) – This 20+ column inch article (adorned with a photo of bighorn sheep traversing a snowy landscape) reports that glaciers within the northwestern Montana park have been melting and predicts that all of them “could be gone by 2020.”  Concerns are expressed about earlier springs, drier summers, and disruption to wildlife in the area.

        [Temperatures are warmer now than they were 100 years ago, and it is no surprise that glaciers have been shrinking.  Barring the onset of a cooling trend, this will probably continue.  However, we would imagine that the park is still beautiful, and the wildlife is finding ways to adapt.  One blessing: the article does not blame the warming that has occurred on human activity.]

5/22/10, A1/A4  "Greenpeace blimp puts spotlight on chemical dangers: Millions live downwind from toxic gases used at DuPont plants," Jeff Montgomery & Robin Brown - Using a hot-air blimp, Greenpeace got front-page coverage (including a picture of the blimp above the Edge Moor plant) for their stunt calling attention to alleged danger from tank cars of chlorine at DuPont's Edge Moor and Chambers Works plants.  Greenpeace wants to discontinue use of chlorine, or at least minimize the inventory held for production.

[Greenpeace’s ideas about choosing safer means of production may be worthwhile in some cases, but many of their demands would cost money without commensurate benefits.  Bear in mind that only an affluent society can afford a super-clean environment and extreme safety measures, and that unrealistic demands in this area can easily lead to continuing erosion of the regional (and U.S.) manufacturing base, loss of jobs, and a declining standard of living. 

In a similar vein, the Sierra Club and others have been blocking expansion of nuclear power in the US because of a superstitious fear of nuclear radiation.  The result was an expansion of coal-fired power plants, which were not very clean.  We are inclined to prefer nuclear power over coal power for the longer term, but we also prefer coal power over electricity shortages.]

5/20/10, A3, "Top scientists urge forceful action on climate: Academy drops measured tone in reply to questions by Congress," Seth Borenstein (AP) - The National Academy of Sciences has reportedly “urged the government to take drastic action [either “cap and trade” or a carbon tax] to raise the cost of using coal and oil to slow global warming."  Robert Fri, who chaired one of the three panels producing separate climate reports, is quoted:  “We really need to get started right away.  It’s not opinion.  It’s what the science tells you.”

[Many “top scientists” hold a different opinion, and even the NAS (per the Wall Street Journal story this morning) “acknowledges that there is significant uncertainty when attempting longer-term predictions about climate change.”  But the worst part of this business is the attempt to politicize scientific research, as evidenced by something else Fri said: “The charge we got from Congress [presumably the sponsors of the American Power Act] was not just to tell them what the science says but what to do about the problem.”

In our continuing efforts to counter the notion that disruptive and very costly changes in this country’s energy infrastructure should be undertaken in panic mode based on an unproven theory, we might do well to reference the essay of the late Michael Crichton at the end of his 2004 novel, “State of Fear.” It lays out what we are up against in a very thoughtful and eloquent way.  http://www.s-a-f-e.org/nwsltr50.htm#MICHAEL]

5/18/10, A7, Power grid capacity charge rises 75%, Aaron Nathans – Capacity charges make up about 20% of a Delmarva Power customer’s bill, and they are expected to be hiked 75% by PJM Interconnection, which oversees the regional electric grid.  [All else being equal, that would mean a 15% increase in electric bills, which does not sound quite as alarming as the headline but is not good news.]

“The reason for the added cost is that regional electricity demand is projected to increase, while transmission and generation will not, said Ray Dotter, PJM spokesman.”  [RX: time to expand capacity before we start experiencing brownouts and even higher prices.] And Dotter added that the economics of building new power plants are being affected by “uncertainty in the way the government will charge for carbon dioxide emissions.” [In other words, we are already seeing effects of the proposed legislation and/or EPA regulation in this area – it is time for this misguided effort to be put on the shelf.  A push is needed to shorten approval times for additional nuclear capacity, and we should also encourage quick installation of a natural gas-fueled power plant in Delaware.  Wind and solar are OK too if undertaken without government mandates and subsidies.]

5/14/10, A3, “For cold-blooded lizards, heat becomes their mortal enemy: Scientists blame global warming for mass extinctions,” Randolph Schmid (AP) – The prime source for this story is Barry Sinervo, Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz.  The theory is that lizards are cold-blooded animals, so when the temperature gets too hot they must retreat to the shade and cannot hunt for food.  Thus, “Sinervo was doing field work in France when he noticed a decline among lizards” that supposedly indicated “levels of 30 percent extinction across southern Europe.”  Similar findings have been reported in Mexico’s Yucatan region. [Hmm.  California has enough troubles without spending money on saving lizards in France or Mexico.  Also, according to NOAA satellite data, global temperatures over the last 10 years were only about 1 degree Fahrenheit higher than the average for the 20^th Century, hardly enough of a change to doom the lizard population.]

5/14/10, A9, “EPA readies rule to regulate greenhouse gas emissions,” Matthew Daly (AP) –

“The Environmental Protection Agency moved Thursday to more tightly control air pollution from large power plants, factories and oil refineries, a step to limit emissions widely blamed for global warming.”  However, the next sentence says the EPA “is completing a rule,” not that the rule has been issued.  It is also indicated that the rule to be proposed will be somewhat less stringent than one announced last September in that the threshold limits would be higher so only large “polluters” would be affected.  [One more time: CO2 is not a pollutant, and the EPA finding to this effect is based on bogus science.  Also, raising the threshold limits is based on politics – “divide and conquer” – not science.]

As for the possible tie-in of this announcement with the American Power Act (introduced in the Senate yesterday by Senators Kerry & Lieberman), an EPA spokesman “denied any connection.” [If you believe that statement, would you consider some oceanfront property in Arizona?]

5/13/10, A3, “Bill aimed to stem global warming, create jobs – One paragraph story with Washington dateline, about a 987-page bill introduced by sponsors Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman.  “The legislation aims to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases by 17 percent by 2020 and by more than 80% by 2050,” the same goals “as those set by a House bill approved last year.” Reportedly, “the measure faces a steep road in the Senate.” [Interesting that nothing more was said about the bill than this, watch for more coverage in coming issues.  We hope the last sentence is correct!]

5/13/10, A1/A4, “Forecasters: Hurricane season may be wild one: 2010 could rival busiest years for named storms,” Jeff Montgomery – The annual prediction of more hurricanes than usual, but this time without a claim that hurricane activity is increasing due to manmade global warming. [No comments.]

5/13/10, no coverage to date of 5/5/10 hearing re 4th reactor at the Salem-Hope Creek nuclear plant aside from 4/23/10 article re plans for the hearing – [Bill Morris, John Greer and Bill Day of Climate Common Sense attended the meeting, and had a chance to talk with Nuclear Regulatory Commission and PSEG representatives.  We were struck among other things by the predominant support of New Jersey resident and local political leaders.  Of course, this is just the first step in a long and involved approval process, and the environmentalists will be doing their best to throw sand in the gears.]

5/8/10, A1/A2, “Nuclear water leaks into N.J. aquifer: State agency calls for stopping flow, from staff and wire reports – The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection “has ordered the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating station to halt the spread of contaminated water under ground, even as it said there was no imminent threat to drinking-water supplies.”  The water contains small quantities of tritium, a product of nuclear fission that “has been linked to cancer if ingested, inhaled, or absorbed through the skin in large amounts.”  At the present rate of underground dispersal, “it would be 14 or 15 years before the tainted water reaches the nearest private or commercial drinking-water wells about two miles away.”  However, the DEP Commissioner called for “urgent action,” and an environmental group spokesman claimed that “this leaky 40-year-old plant” has “become a major threat to South Jersey’s drinking water.”

        [We seriously doubt there is a major problem here.  Environmentalists watch nuclear power plants very closely, and are constantly agitating to shut them down.  In the process, they overlook the fact that other electric power sources are more expensive and/or polluting.  Thus, many fewer coal-burning plants might have been installed over the past 30 years if there had not been so much hysteria about the risks of nuclear power plants – which have an excellent safety record.]

5/6/10, A10, “Fact check the ‘facts’ of climate change deniers,” Paul Donohue – “Recent letters from global warming deniers repeat common untruths” without citing references, asserts the writer.  For “true facts,” see the Websites of NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC.  Thus, “2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record” and “Medieval times” were not warmer than today. 

[Mr. Donohue’s claims have been made by global warming alarmists many times, but they are carefully worded and will not withstand close scrutiny.  Thus, the NOAA site says “2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record,” and we accept this as true.  However, it is also indicated that (1) the 2000-2009 average was less than one degree Fahrenheit higher than the average for the 20th Century as a whole; and (2) Year-to-year increases in global temperature stopped around the turn of the century, despite continuing increases in CO2 levels.  By the way, scientists do not know whether the warming trend will resume or not.

As global temperature records only go back to 1880, according to the NOAA, the temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) must be inferred from other evidence.  One source of information is ice core data.  Another is the fact that grapes were grown at higher altitudes in Europe during the MWP than they can be grown today.  For a reconstruction of the applicable temperature data over the past 3,000 years, see “A Global Warming Primer,” National Center for Policy Analysis, 2007, page 14.”]

5//3/10, A12, Doubters of global warming keep getting more evidence – Excellent letter by William Day of Climate Common Sense.  Sample: Meanwhile, warming “believers” and their media and enviro allies have been struggling to keep the “warming” scare alive, in spite of the very damaging “Climategate” disclosures of widespread malfeasance, and increasing contrary scientific evidence by climate experts at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and many other universities (and even one brave scientist at the University of Delaware).

5/2/10, A31, “Energy solutions require deep public commitment,” Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, and former DuPont Chairman Chad Holliday – The authors claim that “without significant efforts to tackle the climate issue, the effects of warming will grow, undermining agriculture, making droughts and floods more common and more severe and eventually destroying ecosystems.” [These claims are improbable, and they certainly have not been proven.]  But “power plants last 50 years or more, and they are very cheap to run once built [so] there is little market for new models.”  Accordingly, the private sector will not fund energy innovation [if left to its own devices,] and it is up to the government to promote an enormously expensive new energy infrastructure [passing on the bill to taxpayers and/or consumers]. 

       Gates, Holliday and other corporate leaders have formed the American Energy Innovation Council to promote the foregoing viewpoint.  [Bad idea!  These guys may be doing some useful things, but this is not one of them.  With the economy weak and the government verging on bankruptcy, it would be hard to imagine a worse time to undertake a costly boondoggle like this.  The real goal should be dependable, inexpensive energy, which in our view would be furthered by scrapping (a) the “cap and tax” idea, (b) subsidies for renewable energy, and (c) unwarranted roadblocks to the construction of more nuclear power plants.  We don’t want a handout, just a level playing field.]

5/2/10, Guilt Trip Tactics – Two examples of the insidious, seemingly endless propaganda for wind, solar, etc. projects.  A27, 2/3-page ad by Christiana Care Health System, with a “Caring for Our Planet” paragraph that begins “Imagine a hospital powered by wind . . .”.  What does this have to do with running a hospital?  E5, “Greenpeace knocks Facebook data center.” Facebook chose Grant’s Pass, Oregon for a data center due to cool nights and dry air, hoping to make it an energy efficiency landmark.  Not good enough for Greenpeace, which complains that the facility will use power produced in coal-burning power plants.  “If you want to really be responsible for your carbon footprint, you should be trying to provision your electricity supply with renewable energy as much as possible.”

5/1/10, A8, “Time to Try Nuclear Again?” cartoon – An offshore drilling platform is depicted, with leaking black oil that spells out the above message in fuzzy but recognizable letters.  [It is said a picture is worth a thousand words, and this one is compelling.]  The cartoon is prompted, of course, by a disastrous and as yet unplugged leak from a BP drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico that will inevitably result in a major setback for offshore oil drilling.  And talk about a “perfect storm” for fossil fuel, there was recently a coal mining disaster in West Virginia that possibly involved the shortcutting of safety measures.  [We take some solace in the suggestion that nuclear power, not wind energy, etc., might be the logical alternative to fossil fuels.  Let’s keep questioning why nuclear fuel is not recycled.  Acceptance of recycling can cut the ground from under diehard nuclear opponents.]

4/29/10, A6/A7, “Cape Wind project approved: Federal OK for Mass. wind farm clears way for offshore power: Delaware project now more likely than ever,” Aaron Nathans – According to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, granting of a federal permit represents “the final decision of the United States of America.”  However, groups that oppose the decision, including the Industrial Wind Action Group, plan to sue “immediately” in continuing efforts to stop the project.  [From the IWAG Website: “The rapid growth of industrial wind energy has been fostered by federal and state policies that, while well intentioned, fail to reflect wind energy's limitations as an energy source, its ineffectiveness in reducing emissions, and its impacts on our environment, economy and quality of life.”] 

       Various comments on the federal action are expressed, mostly favorable, but Lester Lave, a professor of economics at Carnegie-Mellon University, is skeptical that offshore wind can be made economically competitive with traditional energy sources.  However, Lave says “you ought to let somebody try it” and Cape Wind could make a good test case.

        [We agree, “let somebody try it,” provided the trial is not financed by the taxpayers.  Wind energy, space adventures and other unnecessary projects should be set aside in view of the risk of a federal government fiscal meltdown. Incidentally, with all the News Journal’s coverage of the wind energy saga, they did not report one word about the first meeting of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which took place on Tuesday, April 27^th.]

4/28/10, A1 (with a big picture)/A7, On the winds of innovation, Molly Murray – “Using a single wind turbine [costing $5 million, and located on top of a 256 foot tower] the University of Delaware’s Lewes campus soon will shift from being an electricity consumer to a producer – powering its campus [when the wind is blowing] and selling the surplus to the city of Lewes.”  In addition to the power generation, operation of this facility is envisioned as providing experience with wind power in a marine environment, e.g., corrosion from salt spray and effects on migratory birds. [If this project raises feasibility issues concerning the Bluewater offshore wind power venture, that would be a plus, potentially leading to a loss of support for an undependable, uneconomic venture.  Although the wind may be free, wind turbines are expensive and they do not last forever.  Fossil fuel power is cheaper than wind power, and nuclear power could be cheaper in the future if the artificial roadblocks to building more nuclear power plants were removed.]  

4/28/10, A14, U.S. should approve plan for offshore wind power, editorial – Federal approval of the Cape Wind project is urged despite the objections that have been lodged by landowners and Indian tribes on Cape Cod.  As pointed out by Delaware Governor Jack Markell and five other governors, a decision to proceed with this project could help to clear the way for additional offshore projects like Bluewater.  And note that it has taken nine years and $45 million to get the Cape Wind project to this point.  [Without necessarily endorsing the arguments against the Cape Wind project, see 4/18/10 entry, we cannot agree that clearing the way for heavily subsidized offshore wind power projects is in the long term national interest.  To the contrary, we believe that inexpensive energy should trump “feel good” green energy projects unless and until the manmade global warming theory is convincingly proven.]

4/27/10, A7, UD academics share visions of energy future, Aaron Nathans – At an “energy day for media,” faculty specialists shared a range of [dubious] views. Interesting that the University of Delaware has both a Center for Energy & Environmental Policy, which touts energy conservation, and a Center for Carbon-Free Power Integration that thinks our salvation lies in offshore wind power.  [Nobody advocated leveling the playing field and letting the free market decide what energy sources should be employed, which would be the right answer.]

       A University of Maryland professor frets that nuclear power “holds great promise for a lower carbon future,” but my be impeded by a shortage of trained engineers and workers due to high retirement rates of experienced personnel.  [We are not concerned.  It will take years to build more nuclear power plants, even if the nuclear program is accelerated, and highly skilled veterans of our nuclear submarine fleet could become instructors in training programs for the next generation.]

4/27/10, A8, Conspiracy adherents are at it again with the climate, Steven K. Dentel, Newark – The writer suggests likens climate change skeptics to people who thought NASA reports of landing on the moon were an elaborate hoax.  “More than 20 years ago, [scientific] models were predicting the global warming that we are now observing.  Global temperatures continue to rise, and these models show that, with inaction, we are headed for an environmental crisis.”  However, “just as with the moon rocks, the conspiracy theorists will never admit they’re wrong . . . [and they are] funded by the fossil fuel industries.”

        [The models showed a continuous warming trend, all right, but the warming stopped about ten years ago.  Scientists do not know what will come next, renewed warming or a cooling trend; the only sure thing is continuing climate change.  There is ample proof of higher temperatures in the past, at a time when CO2 levels were lower than they are now.  Some of the fossil fuel companies mistakenly jumped on the global warming bandwagon, and there are plenty of firms that could make a killing from a “Cap and Trade” regime and/or alternative energy subsidies.  As for inability to admit error, the letter speaks for itself.] 

4/25/10, A24, “U.S. deletes analysis of air attack on nuclear plant from website,” AP – Pennsylvania anti-nuclear group claimed that a memo posted on a DOE Website could be used by terrorists plotting to strike nuclear power plants, showing areas where a plane could hit with maximum effect and buildings or targets where a strike could release radiation.  Representatives of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Exelon Corp. (owner of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant) denied that the availability of the memo posed any real risk, but it has been removed from the Website.  The group complains that the memo may still be available on microfiche at libraries and/or available for purchase from the DOE.  A “Near Delaware” box reminds local readers that “three nuclear-powered generators have portions of their 10- to 50-mile safety zones overlapping parts of Delaware.” [Golly, how can people sleep at night?]

4/23/10, Pollution worse than reported: EPA is aware of discrepancies, but hasn’t changed how it measures, A1/A13, AP – For reasons discussed in the article, it is claimed that “pollution from petrochemical plants is at least 10 times greater than what is reported to the government and the public.” [We can believe underreporting, but such an order of magnitude discrepancy sounds improbable.  Also, how much would it help the global environment to raise standards high enough to destroy the U.S. petrochemical industry and drive all the refining and jobs offshore?  A reality check might not hurt on this kind of story.]

4/23/10, DelTech takes important step on carbon emissions, A14 – Editorial lauds DelTech goal of reducing its “carbon footprint” by 20% over the next 10 years (4/22/10 story), timed to coincide with Earth Day.  Students will be offered “the opportunity to study how the equipment works, which is as important as the energy they’ll save.” [The question remains: why should the federal government be subsidizing the solar panels being installed, etc.?]

4/23/10, B1/B2, “Salem/ Hope seeks to add reactor: PSEG Nuclear to file application for fourth plant at site,” Jeff Montgomery – A lengthy approval process will kick off with a public open house scheduled for May 6 (5:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.) at the Salem Community College Performing Arts Theater, 460 Hollywood Avenue, Carney’s Point, NJ. Some anti-nuclear groups will be there. [Perhaps some of us should consider attending to show support.]

4/22/10, Earth Day Issue – In March it was “Earth Hour” (3/28/10 entry), it is Earth Day (on the 40^th anniversary of the original event on April 22, 1970).  In honor of the occasion, a number of articles (too many to discuss in detail, but the connections to the manmade global warming theme are indicated where they aren’t obvious)

ü      “Wind farm nears reality: Feds open bidding for renewable energy projects off Del. coast,” A1/A6, Aaron Nathans.

ü      “Laying waste to wastefulness: Composting center puts Delaware in forefront of food recycling,” A1/A2, Jeff Montgomery – “land-filled food produces liquid pollutants and methane, a gas that contributes to global warming”

ü      “New threats to planet harder to see than burning rivers,” A1/A2, AP.

ü      “Conectiv sale to cost 150 jobs,” A7/A9, Aaron Nathans – Calpine Corp. of Texas will be converting the coal-fired power facilities it is buying in Edgemoor and Pennsville, NJ to natural gas [which produces less CO2 than coal].  Calpine President Jack Fusco said decision to discontinue use of a coal as a fuel “reaffirms our strong sense of environmental stewardship.” An $80 million investment by Conectiv in emission controls on the coal-fired units at Edgemoor, installed at the urging of state regulators, “will no longer be needed.” [In other words, the money was wasted.  As for switching to natural gas, we hope this decision is based on sound economics.]

ü      Online Poll question, B1, “Are you planning to be more ‘green’ today in honor of Earth Day? [Responses, reported the next day: Yes, 23%; No, 77%.]

ü      “Delaware Tech plans big cut in waste, emissions: Target is 20% reduction in carbon footprint,” B1/B2, Wade Malcolm.

ü      B4: Mutts comic strip: Another in a series of “Earth Days” [one day not enough?] strips.

ü      “All Green to Me: Plugged In,” special section  (28 pages) – Includes an update on the Fisker hybrid venture, “Going green with the Markells” (picture shows family on bikes), Solar power, “Six steps to help kids go green,” “Smart talk, good times” (networking events for “people who share a passion for green living”), and “Obama reverses Bush’s course on environment” (the former president is described as having “used his executive power to weaken clear air and water regulations, open public lands to increased oil and gas drilling and block action to fight climate change”). [Most of the ads harmonize with the environmental theme, but not the one by Brandywine Chrysler Jeep Dodge with a big picture and pitch for a “Hemi V8” truck.]

 [We agree with many aspects of the environmentalist agenda, the manmade global warming theory aside, but there comes a point of overload.  Simply put, environmental worries are far from the most serious problems facing mankind, and regulations need to be kept within reasonable bounds or the economy will be undermined. Perhaps the media should reconsider its priorities.]

4/21/10, A6/A7, “The Eruption in Iceland: Volcanoes: A blast from the past, Christopher Yasiejko (special to the News Journal) – Two-pages with pictures on this developing situation.  One of the effects: the ash cloud entering the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere “will change our climate for the next year or two, resulting in cooler and wetter weather conditions.”

4/19/10, A12, “Stop wasting time on climate change fallacies, letter to the editor (Gerry Lucht) – Arrested warming – warmer periods earlier with lower CO2 – EPA finding does not make sense – no justification shown for subsidizing wind and solar power – remove barriers to low cost energy and let free market take care of “energy independence.” Good letter!

4/19/10, A12, DPL’s decoupling plan only discourages “going green,” letter to the editor (Roy& Diana DeWalt) – The writers complain that proposed change in Delmarva rate schedule would force “those of us trying to save our planet to pay more for what needs to be done by all.” [Government mandates and subsidies having a far greater effect on electricity prices are conveniently not discussed.]

4/18/10, E5, “A fight for future of energy: Cape Wind offshore farm threatened by Indian rites, Kennedy wish” (Bloomberg News) – Update of 1/6/10 story, this time with pictures, one of Dutch offshore wind turbines and the other of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar standing at a microphone in a wide-brimmed hat and talking about the viability of the Cape Wind project.

        The problem: Leaders of 3,200 Wampanoag Indians . . . say Cape Wind’s turbine blades reaching 440 feet into the air would desecrate the view of the sunrise that’s essential to their prayer ceremonies.  And a month before his death, Senator Ted Kennedy wrote the president imploring him to stop the wind farm, which would be visible from the Kennedy home.  What’s more, according to Energy Management, Inc., placing the turbines further offshore “isn’t an option because that would interfere with migrating whales and seals.”

        The decision: A federal advisory council recommended against the project on April 2.  Salazar’s ruling, expected this month, could have implications for other offshore wind projects.

[A better reason to oppose this project, not mentioned in the article, is that it would be dependent on government mandates and subsidies.]

4/15/10, A1/A8, Changes in atmosphere fuel rise in pollen levels, Molly Murray – A high pollen count this spring was accorded front-page coverage with a big color picture.  “Some experts” think the problem is more about weather than climate, but the article manages to insinuate that there is more going on than beyond above-average precipitation and a sudden burst of warm spring temperatures.

        “Even disregarding climate change, odds are that increased levels of carbon dioxide – carbon dioxide has increased 40 percent since Colonial times – are fueling more rapid growth, the scientists said.”  The primary source cited is a just released report of the National Wildlife Federation report entitled “Extreme Allergies and Global Warming.”

        [What do allergies have to do with wildlife?  Not much, but the NWF is looking for ways to support its claim that climate change is a big problem.  The complaint about CO2 boils down to resistance to “change” – even though change is inevitable.  Analogous claims include the discredited theories that global warming will destroy the coral reefs and melt all the Himalayan glaciers in another 30 years.  We’ve even heard global warming blamed for the allegedly increased prevalence of poison ivy!  Lighten up, people, it’s not clear that the warming trend will resume, and even if it does there will be pluses as well as minuses and plenty of time to adapt.] 

4/14/10, A16, Global warming “science” is an unreliable construct, Robert Smiley – This letter to the editor refutes a prior letter (see 3/20/10 entry) that claimed “all major scientific climate models are clear that you will have disastrous runaway changes to global climate patterns.”  Computer models should not be labeled scientific – arbitrary assumptions – do not predict what has happened or will happen in the future – no “disastrous runaway changes” during the Medieval Warm Period – apparent trend toward lower-temperature warm periods may presage a new ice age.  [Well said!]

4/13/10, A6, Electric contract to save $13.2M: State gets prices 18 percent lower from Washington Gas. Aaron Nathans – This 3-year saving (fiscal years 2011-2013) will be under a new electric supply contract with Washington Gas Energy Services [one of the largest electricity suppliers in the Mid-Atlantic region] versus rates currently being paid.  The saving is attributed to electric power competition, lower natural gas costs, and an expanded purchasing pool.

        The agreement specifies that 30.5% of the electricity will come from wind power facilities during the first year of the contract, increasing to 35% by the third year, which is said to be up from a current rate of 8%.  The contract achieves the 30% renewable-energy target that Governor Markell set in an executive order signed in March.

[This discussion of wind power aspects is confusing at best.  A representative of Washington Gas reportedly said the electricity will not be produced from wind projects, and that “the wind purchase” will be in credits from wind farms around the country.  The state’s 30% renewable-energy purchase target was set forth in an executive order signed in February.  See 2/18/10 entry. We are skeptical that purchases of 30%-wind energy would be compatible with the overall cost savings that is described if the cost of the “wind” credits is being included in the reported purchase price, and certainly “wind energy savings” are not identified as one of the reasons for the cost savings.]

4/12/10, A1/A7, Green is global, industry says: Buy-American rule is seen as short-sighted,  Aaron Nathans – What happens if Congress mandates and/or subsidizes high-priced renewable energy generation for the purpose of creating “green jobs,” and it turns out that the jobs will be added overseas?  You guessed it -- Congress will add a “buy America” requirement to qualify for government subsidies, as it attempted to do in the economic stimulus package pushed through Congress last year.

        Turns out, however, that things are a bit more involved in a global economy.  Thus, Motech Industries assembles solar panels in Delaware, and hopes to increase production.  However, the silicon wafers that it uses are made in Taiwan.  These plants in turn consume polysilicon power, which will soon be coming from a plant in Pennsylvania.

        So does Motech qualify as a U.S. producer or not?  The office of Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) “did not immediately returns calls seeking a comment.”

4/10/10, B3, “Radioactive water leak probed at Salem 2, “from wire reports” – After the owner (PSEG) of the Salem 2 nuclear power plant advised the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of a leak of radioactive water into catch basins, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection sent some of its people to monitor the situation.  They reportedly found that the contaminated water had not gotten into the groundwater or surviving environment.  [Whew!]

       However, lest it be forgotten, PSEG reported a tritium leak into groundwater at its Salem I unit in 2003. Also, a nationwide survey supposedly found that tritium had escaped into the groundwater at 27 of the nation’s 104 nuclear power plants.

4/9/10, A1/A12, “Deal struck for refinery: Reopening to bring 600 jobs, buyer says,” Jeff Montgomery & Ginger Gibson; A16, Deal on former Valero plant is a feather in Markell’s cap –

A deal has been struck to reopen the Delaware City Refinery.  The new owner will be PBF Energy Partners LLC, and the deal has been strongly supported by Governor Jack Markell et al.  Various financial incentives will be provided by the state.  The use of plant facilities for imports of refined gasoline will begin at once, while the plant startup will take a year or so.

        Comments reported were generally positive.  However, Ann Kohler, a refining industry analyst, said there is overcapacity in the refining industry that undercuts refiner profitability. 

And Alan Muller of Green Delaware called the deal “bad news” because “we need to be reducing petroleum consumption, rather than trying to increase it” even though the refinery reopening “benefits a few hundred people [plant workers].” 

        The News Journal editorial makes a passing reference to Del. City’s “spotty environmental record,” but on balance characterizes the deal as “a major coup for Gov. Markell, who persuaded Valero not to demolish the plant.”

        [It is good to see the state government showing some interest in preserving an industrial base in this region for a change.  Importing refined gasoline is an option, but with reasonable environmental requirements it should be more economic to do the refining here.]

4/7/10, A18, Wind farms could act as backup power for others – According to this editorial, the problem of lulls in the wind was a legitimate concern for offshore power development. “There was even talk about building a gas powered plant in Sussex County” for the Bluewater Project, which [shudder] “customers would have to pay for.”

        But now a team of UD scientists has come up with the idea of linking wind farms by undersea cable so they could provide backup power for each other (see story on 4/6), “an idea that’s simple and logical, although, as the team said, a lot would depend on the cooperation of various states and power companies.” [Translation: more mandates and subsidies would be proposed.  No deal!]

4/6/10, “UD study: Taming wind just takes a ‘backbone’: Linking offshore farms could eliminate need for backup power,” Aaron Nathans – The study suggests that one of the drawbacks of offshore wind energy projects, they don’t work unless the wind is blowing, could be mitigated by building a lot of plants and linking them all together by underwater transmission lines.  Then when the wind was not blowing in one area, backup power could be provided by wind power facilities in other areas versus building “costly backup power plants on land.”

        [Sounds like a dubious proposition to us, as the planned investment in high cost wind energy would be increased substantially.  A huge increase in government mandates and subsidies would no doubt be required to make the proposal work.] 

4/6/10, “NJ: Keep dredge suit out of Del.: Other issues remain, U.S. district judge told,” Jeff Montgomery – The Corps of Engineers has moved to transfer anti-dredging suits in New Jersey to the District Court in Delaware, where they would presumably be merged with the suit that has for the most part already been dismissed and thus save a lot of time and energy.  By dint of reporting on this procedural development, the News Journal once again sets forth all the arguments against dredging the shipping channel in the Delaware River 5 feet deeper – an issue that has been pending in the courts for a decade.

        [We are getting tired of reading about this issue, and probably many other people feel the same way.  It seems as though the environmentalists simply cannot concede that they are, once again, making a mountain out of a molehill.  We doubt that the deeper dredging will cause much environmental damage, suspect the claims that the project is a big waste of money are overstated (many federal spending bills are far worse), and would note that the world economy is becoming increasingly interdependent and big ships are more economical than little ships.]

4/4/10, NRC judges nuclear safety; Regulators to discuss Salem/Hope Creek findings; The annual meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. Tuesday,” Jeff Montgomery – Federal officials have already concluded that the plant operated safely in 2009 and are prepared to relax “special oversight of the plant’s safety practices and workplace culture.”  And PSEG Nuclear is undergoing an elaborate review process aimed at securing 20-year service extensions.

        But a public hearing will be held in Salem, New Jersey, at which anti-nuclear activists will be able to reiterate their concerns about the Salem/ Hope Creek nuclear complex.  This article reprises some of their talking points: oppose plan to produce radioactive Cobalt 60, demand that the facilities be reengineered to add cooling towers, fret about the 10-mile emergency planning zone.  The same points have all been reported before.

        [Bottom line: the intent is to impose so many restrictions on the operation of nuclear power plants that they will not be practicable.  Comprehensive federal regulation is not viewed as enough.] 

4/3/10, A1/A2 – Dredging benefits in doubt, GAP says: Corps economic analysis out of date, report finds, Jeff Montgomery – “The $300 million Delaware River dredging project, already under way, could be a colossal waste of money, according to a report released Friday by the Government Accountability Office.”  Specifics cited were a downturn in crude oil imports along the Delaware River and unproven assumptions about likely shifts in container ship traffic if the shipping channel is deepened from 40 to 45 feet.

        Senator Frank Lautenburg (D-NJ) and other members of Congress from the Garden State requested the study, no doubt pandering to the opponents of the dredging.  And although members of Congress from Delaware could not immediately be reached for comment, the article states that all of them have shown support of the review by the GAO in the past.

       Comments are reported from various interested groups, which are pretty much in line with their past statements.  The Corps of Engineers plans to keep going; so do the folks who are pursuing court challenges. 

According to the Corps of Engineers: Average benefits over the project’s 50-year life would be around $30.1M, while costs would be around $22.3M, meaning taxpayers would get around $1.35 in economic benefits for every dollar spent.

[Our take: With growing interdependence among countries, it makes sense to maintain adequate depth for efficient, large ships.  And if the river channel is not deepened, the result will be a continuing decline in the economic vitality of this region. There must be a way to settle issues like this without endless administrative and legal battles, which could very well cost more than the dredging will.  Also, it sounds like the News Journal may have exaggerated the costs in its lead paragraph.]

4/2/10, A1/A2, "Better mpg, higher prices" (AP); A12, Why did it take 30 years to establish emission rules? – New EPA/ Department of Transportation mileage standards for motor vehicles designed to boost mileage, cut emissions and hasten “the next generation of fuel-stingy hybrids and electric cars” have been issued. The general thrust of the news story is that the average cost per vehicle will increase by $926 by 2016, but car owners will save more than $3,000 in fuel costs over the lives of their vehicles.  However, Ed Tonkin (who chairs the National Automobile Dealers Association) is a skeptic.  “Under these new mandates,” he said, “the price of new cars and light trucks will rise significantly, meaning fewer Americans will be able to buy the new vehicles of their choice.”

        In its accompanying editorial, the News Journal lauds the fact that the rules will cover the entire nation so “manufacturers will not have to deal with the uncertainty of varying federal, state and regional standards.”  And the country will “cut the nation’s dependence on oil and cut greenhouse emissions by 30 percent” [which is assumed without discussion to be a good thing].  But all this took way too long, and “the nation would have been better off if Congress had imposed a carbon tax on gasoline two decades ago.”  When it comes to power plants and refineries, “let’s hope the answer doesn’t take another 30 years.”

        [Seems like governments do not know when to leave well enough alone.  Regulations to reduce smog were OK, but regulations aimed at limiting carbon emissions and forcing energy conservation will prove counterproductive and expensive.  We need to keep reminding people about the weakness of the arguments offered by the proponents of such regulations until the points finally sink in.

The manmade global warming theory remains highly suspect.  Medieval and early warm periods when there was less CO2 in the atmosphere – a 10-year plateau in global temperatures despite continued increases in atmospheric C02 – total unreliability of global temperature forecasts.  Even if there is a warming trend in our future, moreover, it might well prove beneficial.  In short, the EPA finding that CO2 is a “pollutant” for purposes of the Clean Air Act is totally unjustified.

As for energy conservation, let prices be set by supply and demand and consumers will make the appropriate decisions; the government does not need to control this area.  As for the concern about high oil imports, what’s wrong with really clearing the decks for domestic oil and gas production as opposed to the halfway, halfhearted approach that the president has announced?  See 4/1/10 entry and “Gusher of Lies,” a 2008 book by Robert Bryce.]

4/1/10, A1/A6, "Obama proposes offshore drilling: Move permits exploration off East Coast, including Del.," Jeff Montgomery; A1/A6, Senate critics threaten to oppose climate legislation, Nicole Gaudiano; A7, “Environmentalists fear impact on Del. waters: Oil spill could harm wildlife, disrupt construction of planned farm, they say,” Molly Murray; A7, Interest in region not new: 1970s test drilling found no reserves, Molly Murray; A8, Wind firms: Drilling not in conflict: However, state officials fear loss of offshore space, Aaron Nathans; A10, Offshore drilling proposal puts U.S. on sensible path.  [Wow, five articles by four reporters and an editorial; the News Journal staff pulled out all the stops on this story.]

        The president reportedly said offshore energy development could help to keep the nation’s economy growing while it shifts from heavy reliance on imported fossil fuels. However, “this announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies on homegrown fuels and clean energy.” 

        And Interior Secretary Ken Salazar made clear in his remarks that only a small area off the coast of Virginia is ready to go forward with leasing in the near term, and bidding even for that area is unlikely before late 2011 or early 2012. 

       “Some conservatives, including House Republican Leader John Boehner” complained that the president was needlessly banning development along the West Coast, Florida’s Gulf Coast, some waters off Alaska and areas north of Delaware.

Delaware political leaders have various opinions: Senator Kaufman is forthrightly opposed; Vice-President Biden sees plan as “more balanced” than proposals under President Bush; Senator Carper supports “limited exploration if it’s done in an environmentally feasible way” and says this move and others could help to pass “climate change legislation;” Congressman Castle said the nation should “certainly” include new domestic petroleum supplies in short-term planning; Governor Jack Markell wants to think about the White House’s proposal and reasoning.

Environmentalists are quoted at length about their opposition to offshore drilling.  However, Mark Martel of the Delaware Audubon Society called the president “shrewd for putting an initiative in front of [Republicans] that has traditionally been one of theirs.”   

[Our take: Don’t count on domestic oil production being increased any time soon!  Like the president’s much-vaunted announcement about supporting a nuclear resurgence (2/17/10 entry), the offshore drilling proposal is subject to all kinds of qualifications and restrictions, including the high probability of lawsuits being filed to endlessly delay anything being done.  And for goodness sakes, it is time to (a) put that “climate change bill” to rest once and for all, and (b) eliminate federal subsidies for wind energy projects.]

3/30/10, A9, "Tobacco leaf:  The next big biofuel?” (AP) – Some researchers believe tobacco could be genetically modified for use as a biofuel. The logic: (1) not a food source, so would not drive up food prices; (2) tobacco leaves would be used to extract oils and sugars, not burned as such (creating, shudder, “second hand smoke”); and (3) “tobacco farms have been hard hit in recent years and this may be an opportunity for some of those tobacco farmers.”

[Fine, on one condition: no government subsidies.  But if this would be a replay of the corn-based ethanol boondoggle, NO THANKS!]

3/30/10, B3, "Delaware sirens for Salem nuclear plant to be tested" – “The testing is to validate recent routine siren maintenance and will be conducted through Friday.” [This is news?  And, by the way, why should there be an Emergency Planning Zone ringing this plant with 37 dedicated sirens?  Sounds like a sop to the anti-nuclear zealots, and a waste of taxpayer money. The sirens should either be removed or re-dedicated for general emergency notification.]

3/28/10, A2, "Millions go dark for Earth Hour" (AP) – Sydney’s Opera House, Beijing’s Forbidden City, the Eiffel Tower, Big Ben, the Colosseum, the Empire State Building, the National Cathedral (D.C.), and Coca-Cola’s headquarters (Atlanta) all fell dark for an hour.  The occasion was the fourth annual "Earth Hour," started by the World Wildlife Fund (a climate alarmist organization).  Millions of people supposedly followed suit, turning off their lights and appliances for an hour (starting at 8:30 p.m. on March 27, local time) in order “to highlight environmental concerns and to call for a binding pact to cut greenhouse gas emissions.”

[Earth Hour is probably a cost-effective way to promote the climate alarmist agenda.  Makes no difference whether anyone notices lights being turned off, just so long as they read about it.

Similarly, we climate realists need a variety of cost-effective ways to promote our ideas.  Letters to the editor are a good start, but would there be some way to dramatize the benefits of CO2?  How about starting a Green Plant Day?]

3/27/10, A8,  "Don't sacrifice new energy sources for a political fad," Gregory Inskip [of Climate Common Sense] – This letter to the editor notes the negatives of wind energy – high cost, energy sprawl, strobe light effect, bird kills.  The conclusion: "Delaware and other states should re-evaluate the pros and cons of different energy sources before sacrificing the economy and environment to a politically correct fad."

[The heading assigned by the News Journal implies that “new energy sources” are in danger of being sacrificed, rather than the economy and environment.  A more accurate heading might have been: "Wind energy has negative effects".  The other three letters in today's paper had appropriate headings.  Maybe it is a coincidence, but we are beginning to suspect that the News Journal employee who decides the headings for letters is a climate alarmist.  Still, the letter did get published – way to go, Greg!]

3/26/10, A5, "Fragile coral's food chain stretches around the world" (AP) expresses concern that coral reef destruction would decrease fish life that many nations depend on.  Main source: International Union for the Conservation of Nature.  A key quote:  "Numerous studies predict coral reefs are headed for destruction worldwide, largely because of global warming, pollution and coastal development, but also because of damage from bottom dragging fishing boats and the international trade in jewelry and souvenirs made of coral."

        Just as global warming heads the list of alleged causes, it also heads the list of proposed cures:  "Experts say cutting back on carbon emissions to arrest rising sea temperature and acidification of the water -----" 

        [This is one more phony claim about global warming.  Actually, coral reefs have survived through the ages including periods when “when temperatures were as much as 10-15°C warmer than at present, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 2 to 7 times higher than they are currently.” Moreover, the adaptability of coral reefs has been demonstrated by tests that show the reefs adapt very well to increases in both temperature and acidity.  See “CO2, global warming and coral reefs,” a 101 page 2009 book by Dr. Craig Idso.

        Refuting the claims of the warming alarmists is like playing “whack a mole.” When you whack at one hole, the mole pops out at another.  So we will have to stay alert and be persistent.]

3/24/10, A1/A2, "New plan for refinery: Facility could store imported gas before any potential restart," Jeff Montgomery - Connecticut-based PBF Investments declared its interest in buying Valero's Paulsboro NJ refinery as well as the Delaware City refinery.  Apparently, PBF’s European principals “have a major and immediate interest in getting gasoline and other already fuels into American markets from other regions of the world,” [this possibility was noted in our 2/4/10 entry], but will be in no rush to resume refining operations at the Delaware City plant. 

[How can foreign-refined gasoline compete successfully with U.S.-refined?  President Hans Linhardt of LTDI Consulting, a California-based energy industry and engineering consulting company, explains that “the refining market in the United States is in real trouble - the markets and the regulatory environment have been very negative."  In other words, overly strict regulation in the U.S. is undermining a domestic industry, with resultant loss of profits and jobs.]

3/21/10, A27, "State's future includes idled wind and solar projects," Al Rogers (Wilmington) - Letter to editor calls renewable energy a greater evil than gambling because people can choose whether to patronize casinos but they cannot escape high costs for electricity.  Here is a quote: "Turning backwards to renewable energy is equivalent to a revival of the horse and buggy industry." [Excellent!]

 3/21/10, A21, "Sandstorm chokes people of Beijing: Storms increase as deserts expand" (AP) – This article says China’s expanding deserts now cover one-third of the country.  A desertification trend is attributed to “overgrazing, deforestation, urban sprawl and drought.”   

        [Climate alarmists will predictably attribute these problems – like floods, storms, and goodness knows what else – to manmade CO2 emissions. A preemptive strike is needed. We should point out that African deserts are shrinking due to the beneficial effect of CO2 on vegetation.]

3/21/10, E1/E6, "In tough times, Delaware farmers give solar a shot," Aaron Nathans – This article enthuses about solar power as not only saving money for farmers but potentially providing them with a source of revenue.  One farmer got a state grant and installed solar panels, acting early enough “to gain a state grant that paid for nearly half the cost.” [As taxpayers, we object!]

Another farmer who delayed action is “on a long waiting list for a smaller grant,” and, in addition, under existing law, can’t build a large enough unit to sell the excess output to power companies.  “But if Gov. Jack Markell gets his way, the state would allow farmers like [him] to sell excess solar energy.

3/20/10, A10, "Writer misses the big point in climate change debate," David Donohue, M.D., Wilmington – This letter attacks an op-ed column [see 3/18 entry] on "The hysteria of warming," accusing author Ed Okonowicz “and other climate change deniers” of claiming that “there is a vast conspiracy among climate scientists, and that this wing of science is getting rich selling books by hyping hysteria about climate change.”  [Pretty close, except the payoff is government research grants, publication of research findings, and political access, rather than book royalties.]  "All major scientific climate models are clear,” Donohue continues, that there will be “disastrous, runaway changes to global climate patterns.”

[The models in question require some arbitrary assumptions, and the results are generally recognized to be unreliable.  This is not science, it is guesswork that is subject to manipulation based on political biases, and no one really knows what will happen to global temperatures, etc. in the future. Temperatures are lower now than they were during the Medieval Warm Period, or the earlier Roman and Minoan warm periods, when human beings were consuming much less fossil fuel than at present.  Apparently, there were no disastrous climate patterns during those periods.  So like Ed Okonowicz, we see no reason to push the panic button about global warming now – or the risk of another ice age for that matter.  Even if a pronounced warming trend did develop, there would be plenty of time to adapt.]

3/19/10, A10,  "Owner threatens to shut Oyster Creek nuke plant: Exelon protests cooling towers"  (AP) – Last year, the 40-year old plant, first one built in the U.S., received a 20-year extension of its operating license [from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission].  However, New Jersey environmental regulators have now mandated the addition of cooling towers.  Exelon says this would cost $800 million, more than the plant is worth, and that the requirement would force a shutdown of the facility.

        Environmentalists, including the Sierra Club and Save Barnegat Bay, say the cooling tower(s) could be built for $200 million. [Why they should know better than the plant operator, and how the two estimates differ, possibly facility cost vs. facility cost plus disruption to plant operations, is not explained.]  Water leaving the plant is about 10 degrees warmer than when it entered, which environmentalists claim "is altering the fragile ecosystem of the bay."  Also, marine life is sucked into the plant or trapped against the screen.  “Save Barnegat Bay estimates that the plant kills nearly 3 percent of the bay's marine life each day [at that rate, there would be no life left by this time] - an assertion Exelon disputes".

         [It seems highly likely that the environmental claims are overstated and reflect misguided animus against nuclear power. Keeping the cost of electricity affordable for residents of this region is crucial, power produced by existing nuclear plants is a bargain, and it is time to demand that the environmentalists start acting responsibly. They have had a virtual monopoly on public input, and we should end that situation.]

3/18/10, A1/A4, State hopes solar science, history can coexist,” James Merriweather – "The Markell administration wants to dramatically demonstrate its commitment to green technology" by installing solar panels on the roof of Woodburn, the governor's official residence. The governor reportedly sees the proposal as a way for the state to “lead by example.”

[Thumbs down!  Choosing a high-cost energy source for no good reason is a poor idea; one way or another, Delaware taxpayers or consumers will get stuck with the bill.  Given that Markell is struggling with a bloated state government (courtesy of his predecessors) and ailing state economy, one would think he would be more intent on balancing the budget than chasing environmental will of the wisps.]

3/18/10, A13  "The  hysteria of warming,” Ed Okonowicz – This community view column draws a parallel between “recent planet-boiling scenarios” and previous scares about Y2K and Swine Flu. The writer links all three theories with the Chicken Little "sky is falling" story.  He also reminds us that the global warming issue ranks dead last among concerns of the public, according  to surveys.  

[Thumbs up! It is encouraging when you find that someone you don't know is on your side of an issue.  This column should remind us that the government frequently lags behind the public in evaluating pseudo-scientific claims, and that significant harm can result before it catches up.]

3/17/10, A12, "Governors push wind proposals," Aaron Nathans is a full-blown version of yesterday’s “in brief” item, this time with a picture of Delaware Governor Jack Markell and quotes by various interested persons:

• Iowa Governor Chet Culver would like the renewable energy percentage raised to 25% by 2025, in conformity with the federal energy bill that passed the House last year.  But as said bill includes Cap and Trade, which “has drawn criticism from Republicans who have called it too expensive” [translation: the bill is dead in the water], Culver favors separating out the renewable energy purchase mandate to get it passed quickly. “It’s a much longer conversation when you’re talking about trying to get consensus on climate change anywhere in the world right now.”

• Brian Selander, a spokesman for Governor Markell, says “Delaware can only benefit by a national wind energy industry . . . which we think could be one of the nation’s great untapped energy sources.”

• Jeremy Firestone, an associate professor at the University of Delaware, enthuses that mandating that utilities provide at least 10% of their electricity from “green sources” by 2012 could enable Delaware to become a net exporter of renewable energy credits from offshore wind farms to states all over the country.  “It also might spur creation of a wind technology manufacturing base in the state.”  Noting the vast number of landowners who would need to sign off for extensive new power corridors, however, he also says “you’re never going to get [said new power corridors] built.”

• Lester Lave, professor of economics at Carnegie-Mellon University says "getting to 10%(renewable power) by 2012 would be impossible."

            [The issue is not whether this set of proposals is possible within the visualized timeframe, but whether it is desirable at all.  For the reasons stated in yesterday’s entry, we believe wind power should be required to make its way without special government support.  And Governor Culver’s point about forcing increased use of wind power before the manmade global warming theory has been proven would be like “putting the cart before the horse.”]

3/16/10, A7, “Governors seek wind energy boost" – A coalition representing governors of 29 states (including Delaware) is urging the federal government to take steps to boost wind-generated power, notably by requiring utilities to purchase at least 10% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2012, extending stimulus grants for wind projects, and paying for extra transmission lines.

        [If the federal government keeps spending beyond our means, there will be a huge fiscal meltdown – and everyone will suffer the consequences.  So the state governors should start finding ways to spend the money at their disposal more prudently instead of lining up at the federal trough to ask for more. 

As citizens of Delaware, we should urge that this state withdraw from the coalition; as U.S. taxpayers, we should urge that federal subsidies of wind power be stopped; as economic realists, we should keep pointing out that using more wind power would have no notable effect on global temperatures. Bottom line: Let wind power compete on a level playing field.]

3/14/10, B1/B3, "Del. gains $2 million in carbon credit sale: Auction helps curb greenhouse gases," Jeff Montgomery – Using the latest in a series of transaction as “news,” the News Journal reminds readers about the 10-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) that was established several years ago by “states from Maine to Delaware.”

       1. “[Require] power plants to buy permits to release CO2 by the ton for each year’s operation,” with a 10% reduction to be forced in collective CO2 emissions by 2018.

However, “companies that meet limits don’t have to buy credits and can sell any extra credits they may have, while those unable to meet control deadlines can purchase credits needed to cover excess emissions.”

       2.  Spend the auction proceeds for “programs that benefit the public, such as energy-efficiency programs.”  So far, Delaware (through DNREC) has collected a total of $13.9 million in auction proceeds, of which “more than $1 million” has been set aside “to support new approaches to greenhouse-gas control programs.” 

[What’s not to like about this tax and “green energy” slush fund program?  Higher power prices come to mind, which all of us are paying, not to mention unwarranted restrictions in the allocation of state government revenues.  Although the impact of the RGGI has been relatively modest so far, it could grow as the economy recovers from recession.  We do like the idea of tree planting, which is touted by Philip Cherry of DNREC, better than contributing to DNREC overhead – which is where much of the money is likely to wind up going.]

        Jeff Montgomery quotes “researchers” that “rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere already have raised global temperatures, setting the stage for seal-level rise, the loss of polar ice sheets and world glaciers and long-term climate changes.” It is acknowledged that "critics” hold a different view, but none of them are quoted. On the other hand, the article cites a UN goal of an 80% drop in CO2 emissions by 2050 in order “to hold the average global temperature rise to about 3.5 degrees.  [Oh, please!  By 2050,the global warming hoax should be long dead.]

3/13/10, B5/B10,  "Evangelicals are seen as key in climate debate: Panel touts nexus between spirituality and environmentalism," Gary Soulsman – According to Rev. Richard Cizik, president of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, "influencing evangelicals is key to swaying Republicans, as they rely on evangelicals for votes."  He envisions getting mainline evangelicals to "sign on to the movement to lower carbon emissions and avert climate change."

       A second member of this panel, held at the Newark Unitarian Church, brought a "green bible" with "passages on caring for God's creation highlighted in green." (And a third member, Chad Tolman referred to skeptics as "powerful interests with a lot of money at stake." [If only!]

        [The validity of the manmade global warming theory should be a scientific issue, not a religious one.  This thrust suggests that the alarmists cannot win based on the facts and are trying to change the subject.  They will never give up, so we need to continue our efforts until a wooden stake is driven through the heart of this bad idea.]

3/13/10, A1/A2, ‘FBI probes Del. links of al-Qaida suspect: Former resident worked at area nuclear plants before his arrest in Yemen,” Sean O’Sullivan & Jeff Montgomery – Sharif Mobley has been charged with a crime in Yemen, and the FBI is investigating his former activities in the U.S., where among other things he was employed at nuclear sites (Salem/Hope Creek, Calvert Cliffs, and Peach Bottom).  According to a spokesman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mobley worked as a “laborer” and “would not have had access to secure or sensitive areas.”  However, Norm Cohen of an anti-nuclear group, “Unplug Salem,” says the NRC should publicly release details about Mobley’s employers and specific assignments.

        [Although this is a legitimate news story, we question whether it merited placement at the top of the front page.  Free publicity for the anti-nuclear activists, who will leave no stone unturned in trying to raise public doubts about nuclear power.]

3/12/10, A2, "More stress on migratory birds" (AP) – First two sentences: "Global climate change poses a significant threat to migratory bird populations . . . according to a report released yesterday. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar joined scientists and conservation organizers at an Austin (TX) news conference to release the study." 

[The article does not say who is responsible for “The State of the Birds” report, but the following information is posted on line: “The report is the product of a collaborative effort as part of the U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative, between federal and state wildlife agencies, and scientific and conservation organizations including partners from the American Bird Conservancy, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Klamath Bird Observatory, National Audubon Society, The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey.”  Wow, that’s a mouthful!

Secretary Salazar's expense account for this trip may not have been completely wasted if it kept him from some other mischief.  The biggest expense for taxpayers was probably the federal outlays and grant money for this study, which got 6 column inches in the News Journal and hundreds of other newspapers.

Birds are always stressed one way or another.  Otherwise, we would be overrun with birds.  We do enjoy them, though, at the bird feeders outside our kitchen window. See also our 1/10/10 entry on this subject.]

3/11/10, A8, "Markell plans bigger push for renewable energy push," Aaron Nathans - Gov. Markell proposed yesterday that every electric utility in DE be required to buy 30% of its electric power by 2029 from "renewable sources such as solar or wind power." Under current law, Delmarva Power must buy 20% by 2019. Also: (1) the requirement that utilities get 2% of their power from solar by 2019 would be raised to 4% by 2029; (2) utilities would be required to “buy some excess power generated from residential solar installations; (3) utilities would be required “to turn first to Delaware sources of renewable power before looking to buy green power from other states,” and (4) payments from the state’s Green Energy Fund would be reserved for nonprofits “while residents and businesses take advantage of expanded federal incentives.”

       The article says nothing about averting manmade global warming [an alleged threat that may be losing its cachet]; the idea is apparently to support favored ventures including (a) Motech Solar, which plans to purchase the Glasgow solar plant that GE closed down, and (b) offshore wind farms, as a mean to create “green jobs” in Delaware.

[Such government meddling in the economy is uncalled for, and Governor Markell should be concentrating on making Delaware more business-friendly.  Repeal of the current law would be a useful step in that direction, since high energy costs are bad for business, and the new proposals would obviously make things worse. 

3/10/10, A8,  "Scientists to review warming panel" (AP) – As indicated earlier [see 2/28/10 entry], there will be an “outside” review of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reporting procedures.   The InterAcademy Council (IAC), a Netherlands-based organization of the science academies of 15 nations, “will be given complete control to review the rules, procedures and reports” of the IPCC.  According to one source, “the idea is to have the review finished before the annual meeting of the IPCC in October.”

        [Pardon us for being skeptical, but we predict that the IAC review will be a whitewash.  The arbitrary deadline is one clue; another is the statement in the article that proven IPCC “mistakes don’t undercut the broad consensus on global warming.” 

But if the IAC conducted an honest review, the conclusion should be that the IPCC – its alarmist summary report in 2007 notwithstanding – does not know whether the warming trend will resume or the world will be entering a new ice age.

The IPCC does deserve credit, however, for not parroting all the silly claims that James Hansen and Al Gore have made about huge sea level rises, etc.]

3/9/10, A1/A5,  "Fisker plan becoming a reality, CEO says: Hybrid jobs here soon, he tells NCCo Chamber," Eric Ruth – [It's hard not to root for Fisker’s success at the former Boxwood plant.  However, here is another example of the government - state government in this case - giving money it doesn't have to a risky enterprise.

        If the government would stick to its basic job of keeping order, and leave commerce to the free market, the free market would correct itself, as happened in the 1921 recession that everyone has forgotten about because it (unlike the Great Depression of the 1930s) was soon over.

       Given that the real unemployment rate (factoring in people who have stopped looking for work) is about 17% and the government has not had the sense to stay out of the way, we will need a lot of luck to get out of the current economic mess.]

3/5/10, A16,  "Limiting greenhouse gases still the best strategy for us," Lawrence DeHeer (New Castle) – This letter parallel’s John Greer’s defense of 31,000 signer’s petition (see 2/11/10 entry), ending with a reference to “the global environmental and economic disruptions and the associated human disease, suffering and death which would ensue from the current harmful, unnecessary and ineffective proposals to limit greenhouse gases.” [The assigned headline is 180 degrees off.  Perhaps the concept that the proposed restrictions on greenhouse gases might cause the very ills they are supposedly designed to prevent was too much for the staffer concerned to deal with.]

3/5/10, B1/B2, "Feds targeting three pollutants," Nicole Gaudiano – Last month [see 2/5/10 entry], Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) & Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) introduced a bill to cut sulfur dioxide 80% by 2018, nitrogen oxides 53% by 2015 and mercury 90% by 2015.  Now Senator Carper is quoted during a subcommittee hearing that the proposed reductions will “save more than 215,000 lives over a 15-year period” and “cost consumers less than $2 a month.” 

To give the story a local angle, a spokeswoman for the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control is quoted that a “national solution” is needed.  Delaware’s air quality doesn’t meet federal standards, she says, due to high levels of pollution from other states upwind.

From the other comments reported, it sounds as if this legislation or something like it will pass.  Thus, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) said he thinks lawmakers can pass a bipartisan bill and that the main concern would be imposing strict emission reductions too quickly on power plants. 

The only clear-cut opposition was from a spokesman of the American Electric Power Service Corp, who said some provisions in the bill are “unrealistic and inflexible, and would increase the cost of compliance unnecessarily.”

[The claimed savings in lives by the Environmental Protection Agency are probably based on the same linear–no threshold projection procedure that causes grossly inaccurate assessments of the effects of lower level radiation.  See 2/21/10 entry re Hormesis.  The writer’s brother played with mercury as a child; he is now in his 80s and quite healthy.  Still, mercury and the other substances are real pollutants, unlike CO2, and some level of regulation is appropriate.  The issue is striking a sensible balance.]

3/4/10, A7  "Study: Tainted food costs U.S. $152 billion" (AP) – "The government estimates 76 million people are sickened by food-borne illness each year, hundreds of thousands are hospitalized and about 5,000 die." [Perhaps these losses could be reduced by eliminating restrictions on irradiation of food.]

 3/4/10, A7, "Carper bill would extend offshore wind tax credits,” Nicole Gaudiano -

The proposal is to extend production and investment tax credits for offshore wind farms until 2020. "This legislation is essential to encourage the continued growth of this fledgling industry," according to Carper.  [Comments: (1) the cost to taxpayers is conveniently omitted from the article; (2) if wind farms are not economically feasible without government support, they should not be built.]

3/4/10, A14, "Time to move past quibbling in the climate change debate," Peter McLean (Middletown) – According to the writer, our country should ignore “the very small chance the [manmade global warming] evidence is unsupported” because “the consequences of not acting soon will be severe for all life” and “there’s little harm . . . in working with nature by developing renewable energy economies.”

[Actually, the manmade global warming theory has not been well supported, and more and more people seem to be catching on.  See, e.g., “Unwinding the Great Global Warming Delusion,” The Heartlander, Jan.-Feb. 2010, Heartland Institute.

As for renewable energy, the problem is sticking the country with a huge bill for expensive, undependable energy.  Ignoring these drawbacks will not make them go away.]

3/3/10, B3, "Comments sought on PSEG test at Hope Creek reactor" – The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will review a PSEG plan to produce radioactive Cobalt 60 in the reactor core, using modified rods containing CO that will change to CO60.  The Cobalt 60 can then be used in "cancer radiation-therapy devices, systems for sterilizing food or medical equipment."

      Written comments can be submitted to the NRC until April 1.  (Here’s a link to the instructions: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2010/10-039.html).

[This may be an opportunity to point out damage caused by opposition to sterilization of food.  We plan to submit anti-anti-nuclear comments before the 4/1 deadline.]

Petitions for a public hearing must be filed by May 3.  [Expect anti-nuclear zealots to request a public hearing so they can get anti-nuclear publicity.]

2/28/10, A20, "Public's resolve to address global warming melts away" (Bloomberg News) –

U.S. Rep. Bob Ingles (R-SC) became an alarmist four years ago "when scientists showed him evidence of melting ice in Antarctica."  And three years ago, former Vice President Al Gore “won a Nobel Prize for sounding the alarm on climate change and GE joined a coalition of companies pushing for a cap on greenhouse gases.”

       Yet recent polls find more Americans questioning whether human activity is leading to climate change and just how important it is to overhaul the U.S. energy system during a recession.  Copenhagen failed, the United Nations climate chief plans to step down, and three major companies are quitting the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.  The House-passed cap and trade bill is stalled in the Senate, and Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) calls the manmade global warming theory a “massive hoax.” 

       The other side is not giving up, of course.  Their new talking points are that (a) the threat is climate variability versus warming (former Sen. Tim Wirth, a Colorado Democrat who now heads the U.N. Foundation), and (b) legislation is needed so companies will know how to proceed with long-term investments (Jeffrey Immelt of GE). 

An outside review of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change procedures has been promised in the wake of Climategate, etc. (see the AP sidebar), but “scientists say the problems are minor and have nothing to do with the main conclusions about man-made global warming.”

[It’s great to see signs of progress.  There has been a lot of money wasted, and a lot of attention diverted from real public issues such as ensuring dependable, inexpensive energy and slashing wasteful government spending.  We can be proud of our part in the effort to put a stop to this nonsense.  Let’s keep up the drumbeat.]

2/27/10, A9, "Carper backs up EPA on emissions," Chad Tolman (Delaware chapter of the Sierra Club) –This column praises Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) for opposing Senator Lisa Murkowski's (R-AK) move to strip EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The following statement from a Carper news release (1/21/10) is quoted: "I strongly oppose Sen. Murkowski's resolution to overturn the EPA endangerment finding because the science about global warming is clear:  Greenhouse gases endanger public health."  Tolman adds that Delaware “is especially vulnerable to sea-level rise, one of the consequences of global warming caused by burning fossil fuels.”

However, “the forces of denial and resistance to change are strong.”  Therefore, readers are urged to “take a few minutes to call your members of Congress and let them know they are appreciated.” The list includes Senator Kaufman (said to support Carper’s position) and Congressman Castle (voted in favor of the House energy bill last year).

       [Some calls may be appropriate, but we would suggest a different message.  For starters, the EPA did not review the evidence bearing on the manmade global warming theory, it simply cited preexisting studies such as the 2007 summary report of the IPCC (which has recently come under fire as the result of the Climategate scandal and other revelations).  It would seem appropriate to withdraw the endangerment finding and undertake a real study of this issue, as SAFE recommended in a 6/09 letter to the EPA.

Among the evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is not driving global warming, we would note that the warming trend has paused over the past decade despite continuing increases in CO2.  Temperatures were warmer during the Medieval Warming Period than they are at present, with no apparent ill effects on public health.  And there is no credible evidence that rising sea levels could have a serious effect on Delaware in the foreseeable future.

Finally, who is truly resisting change?  We think it is the global warming alarmists, who believe the government should seek to prevent climate change no matter the cost, not those who understand that the climate is always changing and believe the human race will be able to adjust.]

2/27/10 - Speaking of resistance to change, two other items if the editorial page deserve brief mention. Both pertain to the tendency of special interest groups (of which there are many in the “green” energy coalition) to fight for their own position in the scheme of things without regard to the interests of the general public.

“The next villains: public workers,” Joe Mysak (Bloomberg News) – Having fought for pay and benefit packages that are straining state and local government budgets around the country, especially in California, public employee unions are fiercely resisting adjustments and/or layoffs.  The writer’s premise is that something has to give and the unions may wind up being about as popular as overpaid investment bankers. 

“Tax preparers likely to fight a move to simplify filing,” editorial – Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Judd Gregg (R-NH) are backing a measure that would supposedly make tax filing so much easier that “most of us would choose to do it ourselves.” And it is said tax preparers will lobby against the measure, fearing the resulting loss of business.  Count us as skeptics, because the tax code has gotten more complicated with every passing year, but if the story were true we would say shame on the tax preparers.

2/26/10 –More snow, gusty winds, messy winter driving, what’s next?  Our prediction: continued variation in the weather, a popular topic of conversation since Mark Twain’s day and before.

The Earth always has variation in the weather and, longer term, the climate. Over the ages, the Earth was apparently a snowball at one time and ice-free at another. An in-between climate is more pleasant for human beings.  Activities of our species may have some effect on the climate, if only due to deforestation and reforestation, but the evidence shows that nature, not human activity, is the predominant influence.

       What if nature sends another big ice age?  Human beings might be able to counteract it by injecting particles into the stratosphere that reflect energy back onto the Earth. The feasibility of such an approach was covered in a paper by Edward Teller, Lowell Wood and Roderick Hyde, August 15, 1997, prepared for presentation at the 22nd International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies.

Or if there was a major long-term warming trend that threatened to force the human race into a relatively narrow zone around the equator, it might be able to cool things down by injecting different particles into the stratosphere to reflect some of the Sun’s energy away from the Earth.  Interestingly, the price tag would be modest in comparison to the cost of measures currently being proposed to combat the unproven threat of manmade global warming. See Physicist Edward Teller’s 10/17/97 letter to the Wall Street Journal.

       But there is no emergency now, and major climate changes would be slow in coming.  It took some 100 years for the Little Ice Age to take full effect, and on the order of 10,000 years for big ice ages to take full effect.  So let’s all relax and enjoy the effects of the slight warming that has occurred.  If the warming trend resumes, we may approach the benign climate of the Medieval Warm Period.

2/25/10 – Nothing much on topic in the News Journal today, but the Wall Street Journal reported a Vermont Senate vote (26-4) to oppose continued operation of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant (operating permit expires in 2012), which provides one-third of the state’s electricity.  The primary issue: safety fears sparked by the discovery last year of radioactive tritium leaks.  Hmm, sounds like there is a need to continue talking about radiation Hormesis, a concept last covered in the 2/21 entry.

Natural radiation levels vary widely around the Earth, and it is well established that moderate levels of nuclear radiation are beneficial to health.  What are those levels? 

On average, Americans receive 350 millirems of radiation per year from a variety of sources.  Those who receive more radiation than this are healthier than those who receive less.  Radiation levels are higher elsewhere in the world, e.g., residents of Ramsar Iran receive about 10,000 millirems per year with no apparent ill effects.

       An experiment occurred by accident in Taiwan, starting in the early 1980's.  A Taiwan steel company accidentally mixed highly radioactive cobalt 60 into a commercial batch of steel.  The steel was then used to make reinforcing rods (rebar), which were used in constructing 1,700 apartments.  When the error was discovered 15 years later, officials surveyed past and present apartment dwellers.  They expected to find much more than the statistical norm of 160 cancers but, to their astonishment, found only 5.  ("Terrestrial Energy," page 315, by William Tucker).

        This is one of many examples of Hormesis, wherein a small quantity of something can be beneficial, while a large amount is harmful.  Occupants of the Taiwan apartments were receiving 7,400 millirems of radiation per year, over 20 times the average exposure of Americans.

        A graph of harm and benefit of nuclear radiation would start at zero for zero radiation, curve into the benefit area, and then, as harm overcomes benefit, curve through zero into the harm area.  If we assume that 7,400 millirems of radiation provides the maximum benefit, the curve would enter the harm area at about twice that level or 14,800 millirems.

       On that basis, harm would start at about 40 times our normal radiation exposure.  Below that, money spent to minimize nuclear radiation would be wasted or even counterproductive.

2/24/10, B1/B2, "Yet another major snowstorm cranking up," Jeff Montgomery – Forecast is for high winds and another snowstorm tomorrow, which is described as “possibly [the] most brutal storm of the winter season.”  The cause?  "Weather scientists have blamed warmer than usual sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean . . . for some of the winter’s wild weather across the country.” [This “El Nino” effect is well known.  Similarly, ocean warming has been observed to cause more snow on the Antarctic continent, limiting sea level rise.] However, David A. Robinson, New Jersey State Climatologist [Montgomery never contacts David Legates, the Delaware State Climatologist] is quoted that “temperatures [where?] in February have been 3.5 degrees below normal,” albeit “slightly above normal in January and only a degree below normal in December.”

        [Climate alarmists have increasingly switched their emphasis from "global warming" to "climate change,” which can be interpreted as variations in weather without a change in average temperature.  As the weather is constantly in flux, the latter claim is not easy to prove or refute.

        It doesn't matter.  Whether climate warming or weather variation, the important questions are:  "Is it harmful?" and "Is human activity responsible?"  Both answers have to be "yes" to justify spending huge sums to make our country dependent on expensive, undependable forms of energy.  The evidence of the Medieval Warm Period shows that the answers to both questions are "no".  Case closed.]

2/23/10, A7, "Weather, Chinese demand push up coal prices" – Coal prices are up 21% from 2009 lows, and they may go higher, due to “the coldest U.S. winter in nine years” and record Chinese imports. [Revenue on U.S. coal exports to China is good news, somewhat mitigating this country’s overall trade deficit.  The bad news is that our cost of electricity could increase, although coal-fired power plants are still the cheapest source of power.

       A longer-term threat to inexpensive electricity is posed by government regulations and legal challenges, which are designed to prevent new coal plants from being built and force existing coal plants to shut down. The rationale is that coal plants emit (a) pollution and (b) carbon dioxide (a natural component of the atmosphere, which is essential to life).

       Nuclear power plants may represent a satisfactory replacement for new coal plants, provided the government clears the way to build them without inordinate restrictions and delays, but we should resist the closure of existing coal plants lest blackouts results.  And when a coal plant is shut down, it should be mothballed just in case the power might turn out to be needed.

      When Greenpeace, Sierra Club etc. push for coal plant shutdowns, we should remind them publicly that they are responsible for coal plant expansion, because they stopped expansion of nuclear power.  Starting now, let's refer to "Greenpeace Coal Plants."]

2/22/10, A13,  "Dear America, don't be idiotic about climate," Eugene Robinson – We heartily agree  with the title of this column, but not with most of its content.  Robinson criticizes Senators Jim Inhofe and Jim DeMint for implying that the big snowstorms are negative evidence of man-made global warming, and goes on to lecture about the distinction between weather and climate – albeit complaining about the mini-glacier on his own property.

[We think the two senators were just poking fun at Al Gore.  But the absence of a warming trend in recent years, while the carbon dioxide concentration continues to increase, conflicts with dire predictions of an accelerating spike in global temperatures.  Nobody knows what will happen next.  Warming may resume, a new Little Ice Age may come, or we may be entering the next big ice age.  But this period of no warming underscores the point we have made repeatedly – nature, not human activity, controls the climate.]

       Robinson uses the numbers game - numbers of scientists and numbers of years they have been saying "that the Earth is warming and that humankind is probably responsible." 

[This so-called evidence is trumped by the 31,000 scientists who signed a petition to the contrary.  No, Mr. Robinson, there is no "Scientific consensus."]

2/21/10, A23, “Future lies in growing the green economy,” Ted Kaufman –  “Green technology is not just an environmental movement anymore,” writes Senator Kaufman, ”it is a wise financial investment and a linchpin in ultimately putting Americans back to work.”

He sees everyone jumping on the bandwagon, including “many of our smartest investors” (John Doerr, Vinod Khosla), “companies that have been on the forefront of innovation” (GE, DuPont), and other nations (Norway, Japan, Germany).  Even China “is now working around the clock to expand green technologies – from nuclear power and carbon capture and storage to more efficient lighting and heating.”  So lets go, USA, with Delaware at the forefront (Fisker Automotive, Bluewater offshore wind power, W.L. Gore fuel cell technology, etc.).

[If “green” energy is such a natural, why must it be supported at every turn by government mandates and subsidies?  Also, let it be remembered that the green jobs created will be offset by a larger number of regular jobs lost. But there is one point we can agree with: including nuclear power in the “green” energy mix instead of focusing solely on high cost, unreliable renewable energy.  With a level playing field, nuclear power will win hands down over wind and solar.]

2/21/10, An expensive extrapolation, Bill Morris – Intense radiation can kill a person almost instantly.  A large dose can cause a significant percentage of people to die prematurely of cancer.  It is difficult to detect the long-term effect of a small dose of exposure because some people would be afflicted with cancer anyway.

The government chose to extrapolate the effect of radiation on a straight line to zero, because at zero radiation, there would be zero effect of radiation.  With this linear - no threshold (LNT) assumption, any radiation causes some harm.  But, wait a minute.  Human beings are exposed to radiation from a variety of sources, e.g., Americans receive an average of 350 millirems per year.  Is it reasonable to assume they would be better off with no radiation?

       Real world data suggest low-level radiation is actually beneficial.  People living in areas of above average radiation are healthier than those who live in areas with below average radiation.  This is attributed to "Hormesis", a phenomenon wherein something harmful at a high level (e.g., 100 pills all at once) may be beneficial at a low level (one pill a day).  Thus, physics professor Bernard Cohen analyzed average cancer rate data and average Radon concentration in 1,729 U.S. counties and found a highly significant correlation.  The higher the Radon concentration, the lower the cancer rate. 

       Yet in 1992 the EPA published "A citizens guide to Radon" warning that Radon is causing 14,000 lung cancer deaths per year (see "Terrestrial Energy", 2008 book by William Tucker).  The EPA arrived at that figure by taking cancer death rates of early Uranium miners who were exposed to extremely high levels of Radon, and extrapolating to zero, using the LNT assumption.  As a result, homeowners with higher levels of Radon are required to buy expensive equipment to reduce the Radon level before they can sell their homes.

       The LNT assumption has also been used as a basis to require extremely expensive means to reduce radiation from nuclear power plants below one millirem per year for someone living at the plant boundary, when the health effects of such additional exposure would be negligible (or even beneficial).  Just one example of how the cost of nuclear power has been inflated by unnecessary government regulations.

2/20/10, A6, "Fast track for wind in view," Aaron Nathans – "Offshore wind farms need to be granted permits more quickly, East Coast governors and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said on Friday."  This was reportedly in response to a request of NRG-Bluewater Wind that two "substantially similar" 18-24 month environmental impact statements be combined.  [Two years for an environmental impact statement?  Why so long?  Because it's the government.

      "The governors and Salazar vowed to create a formal consortium to deal with the various issues surrounding offshore wind."  [A “consortium” might expedite offshore wind, or might slow it down.  The slower the better, because wind turbines are not dependable or economical.]

        [Hopefully, the nuclear power logjam has been broken with the announcement (2/17/10) of federal government support for two new nuclear plants in Georgia.  Nuclear plants meet the primary objective of wind power - they produce power without emitting carbon dioxide.  The country needs fast expansion of nuclear power, rather than expensive, undependable wind turbines, so let’s hope sensible ground rules for the recycling/ disposal of nuclear waste will be established soon. Salazar’s comment that “investors will not invest if they have to wait seven to nine years” to get their turbines into the water has equal applicability for multi-billion dollar nuclear power plants.]

2/20/10, A8, "Climate change deniers show ignorance of science," letter to the editor (Rebecca Scarborough, Frederica) -- The writer berates global warming skeptics for calling attention to the heavy snow in the mid-Atlantic, thereby confusing “weather” and “climate.”  She also commends the switch in terminology from “global warming” to “climate change,” saying it is more descriptive of “extreme and erratic and destructive weather patterns . . . heat wave in Rio . . . wildfires in Australia . . . Hurricane Katrina.”  Oh, and “how about the fact that January was the third hottest month globally in 32 years of satellite monitoring?”

[Is Scarborough herself confusing weather and climate?  As for global temperatures in January 2010, the NOAA Website states they were the 4th highest on record, but only 1.08 degrees F above the 20th century average.  And the claim that human activity is the cause of erratic weather is dubious indeed.]

2/19/10, B1/B3, "City water plant becomes solar energy station," Adam Taylor – Using "stimulus" money from the federal government, 2,300 solar panels have been installed at Wilmington's Porter Reservoir.  The $8.9 million cost will result in a $60,000 per year saving in electricity cost.  [That’s only a 0.7% return on the investment!]

       Wilmington will also receive a one-time $250,000 "rebate" from the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control [contributing to the State’s financial problems?] and $120,000 a year from Delmarva Power for renewable energy credits [will these be worth anything to Delmarva if, as looks increasingly likely, a Cap and Trade bill is not passed?]

        [One can hardly blame the City for availing itself of the handouts that have been offered, but this project looks a lot like “robbing Peter to pay Paul.”  And ultimately, will the mighty U.S. government fail if it keeps running trillion dollar deficits?  Quite possibly, with dire results for all of us, for which reason it is time to slash federal spending now.  For some specific ideas along these lines, see “Don’t just stand there, do something constructive [about the budget deficit], 2/15/10, http://www.s-a-f-e.org/blog.htm.

2/18/10, B1, "State government to cut energy use: Markell says order will create jobs," Jeff Montgomery – Governor Markell signed an executive order designed to reduce state government energy use by 10% (vs. mid-2008 levels) as of mid-2011.  The longer-term goal is a 30% reduction by 2015.  State petroleum use would be cut by 25% and vehicle travel by 15%.

       Also covered by the order: (a) expanded clean energy purchases (increase use of renewable energy, e.g., wind and solar power, to 30% by mid-2013), (b) stepped-up government recycling (recycle or divert 75% of waste now sent to landfills by mid-2012), and (c) wider use of environmentally friendly products. 

“There’s a lot here.  It’s bold, but we believed it’s achievable,” said Markell, who claims the changes would support the growth of “green” industries and “the creation of real jobs, at a time when we desperately need them.”  Offshore wind and solar power, energy efficiency overhauls for buildings, and builders of alternative-fuel vehicles (such as Fisker Automotive) are mentioned in the article.

        [Some reactions: (1) In the light of experience with similar goals in the past, we are inclined to be skeptical. (2) Buying more “clean energy” is likely to raise costs, not lower them.  (3) Some “green” jobs might be created, but more regular jobs would be lost. 

To really create jobs, the state should focus on streamlining regulations, thus making it easier to start and run businesses.  Similar action is needed at the federal level – including drastic simplification of the tax laws.  Then stand back and let the free market work its magic.]

2/17/10, A11, "Obama pushes nuclear  resurgence," Aaron Nathans – Hallelujah!  Maybe we won't suffer an electricity shortage  after all.  The government is planning to provide $8 billion in loan guarantees for “the first new reactor in the United States in about three decades.” This support will go to the Southern Company for two nuclear power plants in Burke County, Georgia.

       Breaking the logjam is important, but there is an obvious question:  How about nuclear  waste?  As the article says, “a long-planned nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada” has been scuttled and a blue ribbon commission will be asked to “find another solution.” [Goodness knows how long this could take.  For perspective, the Yucca Mountain site was selected in the 1980s, and over $10 billion was spent on planning and site preparation.  What a waste, as the Administration pulled the plug in 2009.] Also, nuclear plants will be held to “the strictest safety standards.”      

[The best solution for nuclear waste is not a national repository, it is recycling, as other countries do.  As of 2008, according to “Terrestrial Energy” (p. 367) by Michael Tucker, Areva (a French nuclear firm) was “building a reprocessing plant at the old Barnwell site in South Carolina.”  However, we been unable to confirm that such a project is underway.  An Areva spokesman did not mention it in his Congressional testimony about recycling on 6/17/09.]

       The News Journal article includes comments from several groups.  One renewable energy activist was said to be “willing to stomach nuclear power if it meant forgoing investments in coal.”  Jim Black of the Clean Air Council said the nuclear industry should stand on its own, i.e., why should there be federal loan guarantees?  [Good question!]  Developers of the proposed Calvert Cliffs 3 nuclear plant (in Maryland, southeast of Washington) commended the president for putting authorization for such loan guarantees in the budget and are hoping to get their own project approved.  And so forth.

        [Obviously, new nuclear power plants may take a while.  Let’s hope the politicians are finally getting serious about them.]

2/16/10, A9, "Let jobs, not climate, drive green cause," Dana Milbank (Washington Post columnist) – Milbank ridicules any notion that “the existence of heavy snow in the mid-Atlantic debunks global warming theory,” contending that “global warming could actually lead to heavier snows, because warmer air carries more moisture".  [This brings to mind Antarctic negative feedback, whereby a warmer ocean results in more snow falling on Antarctica, resulting in less sea level rise.]

       But Milbank goes on to say the global warming theory has been overstated a tad and suggest “a shift in emphasis.”  Thus, the greens should “keep the argument on the hundreds of billions of dollars spent annually, some of that going to terrorists rather than to domestic job creation.”

And right on cue, current TV ads by Al Gore's climate advocacy group "show workers asking their senators for more jobs from clean energy".

        [We reiterate that creation of a clean energy job results in the loss of two jobs elsewhere.  As for the high cost of imported oil, why not wise up and relax the restrictions on domestic oil production in the vast areas that are currently off limits?]

2/16/10, A9, "Did big snowstorms bury the climate bill?" – The Washington Post solicited comments from Christie Todd Whitman and two American Enterprise Institute scholars, and this is what they got.

      Whitman: There has been "overreach and simplification on both sides of the debate."  The decision to complain about “climate change” rather than “global warming” was a good one, as it will prevent “people such as Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., from being able to claim that this is all a hoax.” [“Climate change” also fails to convey what disaster is foreseen and needs to be averted.]  

"The sooner we take steps to slow the [climate] changes, the better off we'll be."  [Basis for this claim?  Maybe Whitman hasn't noticed that the warming trend stopped about 10 years ago without any significant steps.]

       AEI:  "There may be an energy bill or a jobs bill with "green energy/green jobs folderol, but it won't have a strong climate title."  [Please forget "green jobs," which would waste taxpayer dollars and destroy other jobs.  The way to create jobs is to dial back taxes and regulations on business and let the free market work its magic.]

2/16/10 - In response to both articles, we acknowledge that the recent snowstorms did not bury the global warming theory.   However, a 10-year period without significant warming, plus the ups and downs in temperature within the longer-term warming trend since the Little Ice Age, shows that a steady increase in carbon dioxide concentration is not the major driver of global temperatures.

Nobody knows what will happen next.  The warming trend could resume.  We could have another Little Ice Age.  Or, there could be a very slow descent into another big ice age.

       Remember, the human race is very adaptable, and there will be plenty of time to adapt.

2/15/10 – Again no News Journal coverage on point, just a lament about the effects of putting salt on the roads, so here is another pitch for nuclear power.

        Energy demand has declined because of the current recession, but should bounce back quickly afterwards.  Now is the time to build the new capacity that will be needed.  Otherwise, this area could very well face the danger of electrical blackouts.

Unfortunately, climate alarmists have convinced many that new energy should come from wind turbines, solar panels, etc.  These "renewable" energy sources are very expensive and undependable.  Thus, wind turbines cannot produce electricity when the wind is too slow, too fast, or, reportedly, too cold.  California ran into severe problems due to an attempt to rely on these forms of energy. It is time to face reality before a whole lot of money is wasted on subsidizing renewable energy.

       At present, coal is the main source of electricity, but climate alarmists continually exert pressure to shut down “dirty” coal power plants.  In the long run, they may have a point, because coal plants emit a lot of real pollutants in addition to non-objectionable (in our opinion) carbon dioxide.  Shutdowns should not be rushed through, however, without creating replacement capacity that is inexpensive and reliable. See yesterday’s comments about coal plants. 

       A new generation of nuclear power plants provides an answer that both sides of the global warming debate could favor.  The challenge is to jettison burdensome regulations on nuclear power and curtail endless legal challenges by diehard anti-nuclear zealots.

       And to get to that point, nuclear proponents must win the battle in the court of public opinion.  Common sense information about nuclear power and the fact that other countries are expanding their use of nuclear power should be helpful in that battle.

       Let's keep the lights on.

2/14/10 – Nothing on topic in the News Journal, aside from a story about the next snowstorm, so we give you: FUTURE SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY -- A memo from Bill Morris

       Here is what Rick Sergei, President of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation said at the beginning of his talk at a 11/21/08 meeting:  "Let me candidly tell you that I am concerned ** operating closer to the edge ** leading indicators signal problems ahead ** trends are at best disturbing."

       Here is what I have to say as of 2/14/10:  The main problem is failure to build sufficient capacity, which will probably surface when this recession is over.  The push to close coal-fired power plants is part of the problem.  Three Delaware coal plant shutdowns are scheduled in the next few years.  Fortunately, they will be mothballed.

       False reliance on "politically correct" energy sources contributes to the problem.  California's severe energy problems are a leading indicator of what could happen.  William Tucker, author of "Terrestrial Energy" describes California's problem as follows:  "Alternate and renewable energy sources cannot replace coal and nuclear as the base load for electric power."

        Improvement in nuclear plant operation could have resulted in a false sense of security.  On-stream time was increased from 60% to 90% over a ten-year period.  This huge improvement provided a lot more electricity without building more capacity.  However, there is little room for further improvement.

       A huge amount of natural gas has been found in northeast U.S., which can be recovered by using new techniques.  However, environmentalists are opposing the recovery of this natural gas – or any other source of inexpensive, abundant energy.

2/13/10, A8, "Green energy leaders say U.S. needs long-term strategy," Chuck Raasch (column) – The point of the column is that advocates of various forms of renewable energy are demanding that tax credits, etc. be extended in support of their plans.  Thus, Robert Cleaves, CEO of the Biomass Power Association, complains that expiration of a tax credit for existing biomass plants at the end of 2009 threatens half of his emerging industry.  In contrast, Europe and China are said to have long-term renewable strategies.

        [If an energy source is uneconomical, it requires government support for as long as possible, preferably forever.  One form of support is subsidies, e.g., the tax credits under discussion.  Another is the imposition of penalties on more economical energy sources that will drive up their cost and make high cost energy sources more competitive.  Whatever form the government support takes, one question should be asked: "Why?"

        If the reason is to decrease carbon dioxide emissions (based on the dubious manmade global warming theory), nuclear power does not emit carbon dioxide.  It is dependable, safe, clean and economical.  Government subsidies are not needed.  What is needed are more reasonable regulations, and some degree of protection from endless litigation.

If the reason is to create "green" jobs, this column notes, "an estimated 80 percent of the $2 billion in stimulus spent on wind went to foreign turbine producers."  So now what is supposed to happen, “buy America” requirements that would make wind power even less economical?  Remember too that each "green" job created leads to the loss of 2.2 other jobs, according to a study by a Spanish Economist.

       Real job creation can be fostered by providing abundant inexpensive electricity.  That means allowing coal power plants to operate while jump-starting a resurgence of nuclear power.  Also helpful would be the removal of regulations that hamper business activity and a cut in the U.S. corporate income tax rate.]

       One more point from the column:  "There have been reports this Winter that turbines in Minnesota, one of the top wind power states, aren't turning in extremely cold weather."  [If this is confirmed, we can say: "Wind turbines don't produce electricity when the wind is too fast, too slow, or too cold."]

2/12/10, A16,  "FDA should take tougher look at radiation practices” (editorial) reports “the U.S. Food and Drug Administration finally bowed to concerns about the medical use of radiation for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes."  The FDA will focus on how CT scans are conducted, error reporting, and the training of medical personnel “in operating machines that deliver enough radiation to equal 400 chest X-rays.”

       The study was sparked by reports of patients at a Los Angeles hospital receiving up to eight times the intended radiation, and the FDA also plans reviews of nuclear medicine studies and fluoroscopy (use of radiation-emitting device to view internal images).  Not satisfied, the editorial urges going beyond “media scares of patient suffering” to core training process and quality assurance policies of medical equipment suppliers.

       [There is no question that radiation in high doses can be deadly, as was illustrated by the highly publicized death of millionaire Eben Byers in 1932 due to long-term use of a patent medicine that contained radium. There was a crackdown on the reckless use of radiation, which also inhibited medical innovation.

In the 1990s, a BELLE (biological effects of low-level exposure) study group championed more widespread use of internal imaging, which has offered many medical benefits. See www.belleonline.com, Dec. 1999 newsletter.

The FDA is almost guaranteed to smother the current problem with overkill.  Remember food irradiation?  In response to radiation superstition, the FDA refuses to approve the sterilization of most foods by radiation.  The result is that many are sickened and a few die during occasional outbreaks of tainted food.]

2/11/10, A12, "The numbers are on the side of climate doubters" - A letter by John E. Greer Jr. refutes a letter [see our 1/30/10 entry] calling a petition signed by 31,000 scientists "bogus."

       THE SIGNERS: (1) "Petition signers do not claim to be climate experts but instead that they have earned a bachelor of science degree or higher, giving them a solid foundation for evaluating scientific evidence;” (2) the site says “credentials are evaluated and identities verified before names are added to the petition, contrary to the writer’s claim,” and (3) the writer said he could not verify petition signers, but Greer “verified 25 signers from a list of Delaware licensed professional engineers and another seven from personal knowledge.”

       THE PETITION STATEMENT: This statement, which is backed by a peer-reviewed, 12-page scientific summary, reads in part: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other green­house gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” [The News Journal’s title for the letter omits any reference to human activity, thereby implying that petition signers doubt “climate change” – which has been happening since the world began – as distinguished from “manmade global warming.”]

       COUNTERVAILING EVIDENCE: “A consensus is often claimed for 2,500 scientists involved in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, but only 53 were authors of the critical chapter on causes of climate change. This chapter received favorable comments from only seven of 55 official reviewers, according to ‘Lawrence Solomon: Numbers Racket.’ Over 700 prominent international scientists, including many UN IPCC scientists, disputed manmade global warming claims in a U.S. Senate report.”

        [An advanced science degree or a specialization in some aspect of science is not needed to use common sense.  For example:  It is not disputed that that there was farming in Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period, and grapes were grown in Europe at higher altitudes than they can be grown now.  Therefore, it was warmer then than it is now.  Human beings were not burning fossil fuels and emitting carbon dioxide nearly to the extent that we are now.  If London had flooded, we would read about it in the history books.  You wouldn't need a college degree to disagree with the climate alarmists.  You could easily conclude that they are exaggerating problems from global warming, and that nature, not human activity rules the climate.]

2/10/10 – Nothing on topic in the News Journal today, only a front-page headline on the snow, so we’ll point out an ironic situation. Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and others who want to shut down coal power plants are themselves responsible for the fact that coal is used to generate half of our electricity.  By blocking the expansion of nuclear power, they opened the door for coal to fulfill the need for inexpensive electricity.

       Now these groups want to shut down coal power plants because they emit carbon dioxide as well as real pollutants such as sulfur dioxide.  All the coal and natural gas power plants plus new nuclear power plants will be needed to meet growing demand for electricity once the current recession is hopefully behind us (the only obstacle is misguided government policies).

       Other countries have made much more use of nuclear power, and they will be supplying this country with nuclear power plants and infrastructure.  Thanks a bunch, Greenpeace and Sierra Club.  Let's rename the coal plants, Greenpeace 1, Greenpeace 2, -------

2/9/10, A1/A4, "Scientists: Global warming real despite harsh winter," Jeff Montgomery – Current conditions notwithstanding, “climate scientists” [not some or “most, but by implication all of them] are said to recognize "a larger trend of the Earth getting warmer.” Thus, Cornell weather scientist, Stephen Colluci is quoted:  "It's very easy to look out a window and say global warming isn't happening.  Tell that to people who are living in areas where sea level rise will make them homeless."

       And “a majority of governments around the globe now agree that human-caused pollution has changed the atmosphere,” which will supposedly result in “more extreme weather and more human suffering." [Such claims are hard to refute because “extreme weather” is such a subjective concept.]

       There is a reference to "both sides in the science debate," which implies another point of view.  Also, atmospheric scientist Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama is quoted:

" . . . most variability in weather, no matter where it is on Earth, is natural and not related to any kind of long term climate change due to mankind." [At least Montgomery acknowledges a difference of opinion.  We need to keep up the pressure.]

       [Warming may resume, and take us to the benign climate enjoyed during the Medieval Warm Period.  Or, we could enter another Little Ice Age, or there could be a very slow descent into another big ice age - the present period between big ice ages has already been unusually long.

In any case, there does not seem to be much need to worry about the climate.  Human beings are very adaptable, and there will be plenty of time to adapt.]

2/8/10, A3,  "Connecticut power plant blast kills five" (AP) – A 620 megawatt natural gas power plant that was under construction exploded, killing at least 5 people and injuring a dozen or more, as workers were purging the gas lines.

 [There may or may not be a small follow-up story on this accident, but note the routine coverage.  A comparable event at a nuclear power plant would be a huge story.  How many people were killed at Three Mile Island?  The answer is zero.

            Petr Beckmann lucidly explained the relative safety of nuclear power in a 1976 book, "The health hazards of not going nuclear".  Since his book and the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, control room design and operator training have improved greatly. See "Terrestrial Energy", a 2008 book by William Tucker.

2/6/10 (posted 2/7/10), “NOAA reports show there’s little temperature variation” – Yesterday’s News Journal was found under the snow today.  This letter to the editor by Bill Whipple starts with:  "Although the editorial pages of The News Journal have covered both sides of the manmade global warming debate, the same cannot be said of the news coverage."  [Very true. Three climate alarmists are easily identified among News Journal reporters, based on the stories they cover and how they cover them.  There may well be skeptics on staff, but they are covering other kinds of stories.]

       The letter references the Jan 21 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report, which stated that 2009 tied 2006 as the fifth-warmest on record. And to put this factoid in perspective, using the same data series, 2009 was cooler than 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2005.  Also, directly from the NOAA report,  2009 was only "1.01 degree F above the 20th century average." 

[“On record” refers to data based on direct measurement since 1880, which leaves out the Medieval Warm Period, not to mention much warmer temperatures millions of years ago.  Based on the NOAA data, the warming trend is relatively modest and currently stopped.

        In publishing this letter, the News Journal omitted two key paragraphs. For the unexpurgated version, see  http://www.s-a-f-e.org/letters__2.htm#February_1,_2010.

The NOAA, other government bodies and the Associated Press are frequent sources of climate alarmist stories.  We skeptics can at least provide our point of view frequently with interesting letters to the editor.]

2/6/10 – Hooray for electricity!  Hooray for coal-fired power plants that supply half of our electricity at low cost.  I'll gladly put up with whatever pollution they emit in order to stay warm and cook my food.  I'm especially thankful today, when over a foot of snow overwhelmed the News Journal's excellent paper delivery system - it's in my driveway before 5:30 every morning except today.

       Color me skeptical about pressure from Greenpeace, Sierra etc. to shut down coal-fired power plants.  When people died in London long ago from coal smoke, and Pittsburgh was black with smoke, something had to be done, and it was.  As we became more affluent, we could afford cleaner air.  But, there is a limit to how clean we can afford to be, and I suspect we have already passed it.

      We are in danger of blackouts when the demand for electricity increases, and we need new nuclear power plants soon.  We cannot afford to put up with the endless delays that are blocking them.  Meanwhile, keep the coal-fired power plants in service so the lights will stay on.

2/5/10, A6,  "Carper seeks to decrease air pollutants,” Nicholas Gaudiano (News Journal Washington Bureau) - Senator Carper's proposal is to lower the limits in the Clean Air Act, including the mercury limit which is already very low.  This appears to be like nuclear radiation limits - overkill added to overkill.

       Analytical methods allow detecting the most harmful elements and compounds at levels well below those causing any harm.  If analytical methods were much better, they would probably detect every element in the periodic table in any shovelful of dirt on the Earth.

        The result of this proposal would be to make electricity from coal power plants more expensive, which could have a serious impact on energy costs because half of the nation’s electricity comes from coal. The idea of rapidly expanding wind and solar power is impractical, so natural gas and nuclear plants would be needed to fill the void (and will probably be needed to meet growing demand for electric power in any case).

       Carper is on record as favoring a “safe” nuclear renaissance (News Journal op-ed, 7/16/08), but he doesn't seem to be doing much about it.  Last year, we offered to provide information on the safety of nuclear power, but got no response or expression of interest from his staff.  It is time for another approach to Carper's office.

2/4/10, B1, "Union OKs contract with buyer of refinery," Jeff Montgomery – Local United Steelworkers Union members at the Delaware City Refinery have reportedly approved contract terms for a potential reopening of the Delaware City Refinery by PBS Energy, a European-led venture that may purchase the facility from Valero Energy.  [See 1/23/10 entry.]

        The Delaware City Refinery was built to process heavy, high sulfur crude at a time when heavy crudes were considerably cheaper than light crudes.  Other refineries apparently improved their ability to refine heavy crudes, resulting in a narrowing price differential.  Valero’s shutdown decision last November cited poor market conditions, high operating costs, and maintenance problems that led to $1 million-a-day losses. 

 It is unclear how PBS could run the Delaware City facility profitably when Valero was unable to do so, but several possibilities can be gleaned from the article: (1) acquiring a working import-export terminal and tank farm at a bargain price [could be useful in importing refined gasoline from elsewhere]; (2) State “business incentives to support a reopening” of the refinery; and (3) “possible addition of an ethanol fuel additive plant [the use of ethanol in motor fuel is heavily dependent on government mandates and subsidies] and an upgrade and reactivation of the power plant gasifier.” 

        [Looks like a nuclear power plant in Delaware City is not in the cards; that leaves Sussex County as the most logical location in Delaware.]

2/4/10, B2, " No climate research impropriety in stolen e-mails" (AP) – A Penn State internal inquiry dismissed three allegations against “a leading climate scientist” re suppressing or falsifying data, deleting or concealing e-mails, etc., but recommended further investigation of Professor Michael Mann’s “research conduct.” Mann is said to be a target of criticism by “deniers” [more properly skeptics] of the manmade global warming theory.

[The ongoing investigation would presumably focus on Mann’s infamous "Hockey Stick" graph of temperature against time, which shows the Medieval Warm Period to be cooler than the present.  This is an obvious mistake, although Mann and others continue to use the "Hockey Stick."]

2/3/10, A1/A6, "NRG deal promises cleaner air, bays," Molly Murray – NRG Energy has agreed with Delaware regulators to shut down three of its four generating units at the Indian River Power Plant. The plan is to close Units 1 and 2 (1950s, 164 MW) by 2011, but keep Unit 3 (1970, 177 MW) going until 2013 without installing air emission scrubbers as required by a 2009 court order (approval of the court required).   

Unit 4 (1980, 442 MW), which has a cooling tower, would be upgraded with advanced pollution controls and continue in operation.  [The shutdown units would be mothballed, so if a severe shortage of electricity developed they could be put back in operation.]

       A box (“The Impact”) on the front page cites a series of actual or alleged environmental benefits.  As for the impact on the supply and cost of electricity, it is stated on page A6 that  “an analysis must be completed to ensure that the unit shutdowns will not affect power availability or reliability.” 

An NRG executive says the shutdown of Unit 3 would coincide with the planned start of the Bluewater Wind project.  [This would not ensure power reliability or affordability because wind power is expensive and unreliable. Remember that wind turbines could not be used when the wind was too slow or too fast, and that this project would be subsidized using taxpayer dollars.

A better alternative would be a nuclear power plant of 1,000 MW or more. Clean, safe, no carbon dioxide emissions, much smaller environmental footprint, and dependable electricity at lower cost.  About 70% of Americans support nuclear power, and 90% of those living near a nuclear plant support it. "Terrestrial Energy", William Tucker, 2008.]

2/2/10, A6/A7, "Salem applications unaffected by radioactive leaks in Vermont (Jeff Montgomery) leads with a statement by owners of the Salem nuclear plant on the New Jersey side of the Delaware River that their application for a license renewal from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not been affected by recently discovered radioactive water leaks at a Vermont nuclear plant.  [The only apparent purpose of this story is to keep New Jersey nuclear power plants and anti-nuclear activists in the news.]

        Tritium, a weakly radioactive isotope of hydrogen, was found at levels 100 times the federal drinking water limit in a pipe conduit under the Vermont Yankee plant, and about 5% higher in nearby groundwater.  And [lest anyone forget] “leaks of the same material caused an uproar last year at the Oyster Creek nuclear plant in New Jersey . . . and in 2003 at Salem.”  The article goes on to discuss concerns expressed by several environmental groups about “other pipes leaking” and “more serious problems that have yet to unfold.”

        [Dedicated critics of nuclear power will never be satisfied; they must be beaten by superior arguments.  That’s why we have urged publicity about Hormesis – see yesterday’s entry – as a counter to unwarranted fears about low-level radioactivity.]

2/1/10 – More on “hormesis,” a concept introduced in the 1/26 entry.  The basic point – which can help in promoting expanded use of nuclear power – is that low level nuclear radiation is not harmful and may actually be beneficial. Thus, studies show that the cancer rate decreases as the radiation dose increases up to well above the average dosage of 350 millirems per year.

       An accidental experiment occurred in Taiwan.  Cobalt 60 was accidentally mixed with steel used to make reinforcing rods (rebar) used in construction of apartment buildings with about 10,000 residents.  When this was discovered about 15 years later, a study was made of cancer mortality.  Results showed only 3.4% of the expected amount based on experience for the general population. (Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 1994)

Another example:  "In 1992, the EPA published a 'Citizens Guide to Radon', warning that Radon was causing 14,000 cancer deaths per year" ("Terrestrial Energy" by William Tucker, p. 334).  The basis was death rates of Uranium miners exposed to extremely high levels of Radon, extrapolated using the erroneous Linear No Threshold assumption.  In response, physics professor Bernard Cohen analyzed average cancer rates and Radon concentrations in 1,729 U.S. counties, and found a highly significant negative correlation (Reason Magazine, March 1999).  But the counterproductive EPA standards are still in effect, costing U.S. homeowners money for unnecessary remediation.

       The irrational fear of low-level radiation has resulted in ridiculous and very expensive standards. "After Three Mile Island the Nuclear Regulatory Commission forced the industry to spend $2 billion per reactor for safety features to reduce emissions to 10 millirems per year."  Also, "living on the property line of a nuclear plant all year round would expose a person to 1 millirem" (Terrestrial Energy).

      We need a resurgence of nuclear power as a cost effective way to meet future power needs.  Winning public acceptance should not be too difficult, because 90% of people living near nuclear plants support them.  We should be ready with good ideas for overcoming any roadblocks that could result in large costs or delays.

1/31/10, A22, "New Mexico bill first step toward capturing carbon" (AP) - New Mexico rancher Jack Chatfield is pushing a bill to define property rights to underground fissures.  Once ownership is established, lawmakers would have to clear the way for the state to establish regulations.  The idea is to enable landowners to sell rights to store carbon dioxide underground.  [Of course, the value of such rights would be dependent on government rules and regulations penalizing the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere.]

       Melissa Pollak, a research fellow at the University of Minnesota is "part of a national team studying the national potential of carbon capture and storage.”  [Oh Boy!  Government grants galore!]

[Even if there were a need to limit CO2 emissions, sequestration by underground storage would be an obviously bad idea.  The CO2 would probably leak out eventually, and a large amount that escaped suddenly could be deadly.  A less bad idea is iron fertilization in areas of the ocean where phytoplankton would dramatically increase uptake of carbon dioxide.]

       Another potential use for underground fissures is mentioned in passing: "The underground space could also store compressed air as a part of a process to generate clean electricity."  [This would be a variant of pumping water uphill during low electricity demand, and using it to produce peak demand electricity.  OK, try it, but don’t ask for any government subsidies.]

1/31/10, E1  "Taking it to the streets nuclear waste style" (Aaron Nathans) – Exelon Energy's Limerick nuclear plant [Montgomery County, PA] is running out of storage space, so they have applied to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to send ”a truckload or two” to the Peach Bottom plant [York County, PA].  [This is news? Low-level radiation is not harmful, and the NRC should not need to micromanage this sort of routine operation.]

The situation is attributed to the lack of “a permanent storage solution,” which is causing nuclear plants to store their waste onsite.  [The Obama Administration has apparently killed plans for a national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, after years of study and over $10 billion of preliminary expenditures, without announcing an alternative. Maybe this is just as well, because it is time to permit recycling, but can you imagine how much transportation of nuclear waste would have been involved in implementing this scheme?]

1/30/10, A8, "List of so-called scientists appears to be pretty bogus," letter to editor (Raphael Ross) throws cold water on the list of over 31,000 scientists who have signed a statement: "We urge the United States Government to reject the global warming agreement - there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse is causing or will, in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

        The writer criticizes the lack of rigorous verification procedures for the names and scientific degrees on on-line submission forms.  Picking 20 names at random, he found only two matches on Google scholar that lists published scientific work and neither were climatologists.  And even if the petition is “not largely or wholly bogus,” he says, it “is peopled by ‘scientists’ without the expertise necessary to render an opinion on climate issues.”

[Bill Morris responds: I don't believe anyone has claimed that everyone on the list is a climate scientist, but there have been statements about 31,000 “scientists,” which admittedly involves some degree of overstatement.  Thus, I signed the statement myself, circa 1998 when there were 19,000 signers, yet do not consider myself a scientist.  I am a skeptical Chemical Engineer with a B.S. degree.  Perhaps we should say over “31,000 scientists, engineers, and informed laypeople,” but that gets a little cumbersome.

        Furthermore, the number of scientists who embrace the manmade global warming theory has been exaggerated far more egregiously.  An Op-Ed piece that I wrote, published in the 11/9/98 Delaware State News, provides the following background: The IPCC issued a report which is said to be inconclusive about any effect of human activity on climate.  Then just a few of the IPCC members wrote an executive summary stating that human activity is affecting the climate.  Even though just a few wrote the summary, global warming proponents continually refer to more than 2,000 scientists and economists working for IPCC who agree that there is a discernible effect of human activities on world climate.

       There are undoubtedly many eminent scientists among the over 31,000 people who have signed the statement, including climatologists.  However, scientists or not, signing a statement does not determine facts, it just indicates opinion.  The statement in question was a reaction to a bogus claim that “the science is settled” and there is an urgent need to curb carbon emissions without regard to cost or practicality.  

       The present system of government grants has polluted science.  The primary goal becomes getting the next grant rather than getting at the truth.  This helps to explain Climategate and other shenanigans of the global warming alarmists.]

1/29/10, A4, "Winter latest sign of climate change?" (Washington Post) – “This winter's extreme weather - with heavy snowfall in some places and unusually low temperatures - is in fact a sign of how climate change disrupts long-standing patterns, according to a new report by the National Wildlife Federation (NWF)." Scientists quoted in the article are Amanda Staudt of the NWF and Richard Somerville, a lead writer of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [both of whom are presumably invested in supporting the manmade global warming theory.] 

       There is a reference to “a wealth of scientific evidence,” and the article says “the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported last week that 2009 tied as the second-warmest year on record.  [The NOAA report, which is posted on line, states that global temperatures in 2009 “tied with 2006 as the fifth-warmest on record.”  See also our 1/20/10 entry, which comments on data in this series.]

“The American public is increasingly skeptical that climate change is happening at all,” however, [to the frustration of climate alarmists.]

(1) Yale and George Mason University survey: 57% of respondents said global warming "is happening,” down from 71% in October 2008. And 50% were "very" or "somewhat" worried about global warming versus 63% in 2008.

       (2) Pew Research Center survey: people were asked to rank 21 issues in terms of their priority.  Global warming came in last, and this time “it was worse than usual” because only 28% of respondents (versus 35% in 2008) listed global warming as a top priority.

[Oh boy, what fun!  Let's whack a mole!  Climate is simply the average weather conditions in a region.  The weather is constantly changing, and so is climate.  But scientists do not know whether average global temperatures will rise or fall over the next 100 years, only that they are unlikely to stay put.

Increasingly, climate alarmists are falling back on the presumption that “everyone knows” manmade climate change is a huge threat because they don’t have any convincing proof to offer.  Remember the Sierra Club table at last September's "Community Day" affair on the University of Delaware's campus.  Their pitch:  "Want to stop climate change?" and directly underneath: "Sign here".  But it looks like an increasing number of people are not buying it.]

1/28/10, A1/A10, " Federal judge clears way for dredging to begin,” Jeff Montgomery - U.S. District Court judge Sue Robinson ruled that dredging the Delaware River main shipping channel from 40 to 45 feet can begin, but only for part of its 102-mile length from Cape Henlopen up to Philadelphia.  Several parties are involved in this conflict between economic and environmental concerns, which has been going on since at least 2001.  There is also an unresolved claim under the Clean Air Act, and two other lawsuits to block the dredging are pending in a federal court in New Jersey.

       Port interests say the region must accommodate deeper-bottomed vessels or lose billions of dollars in jobs and commerce.  Environmentalists claim the dredging could stir-up buried toxins and disrupt habitats for some aquatic life, including sturgeon.

       [The headline is misleading, since the decision is at best a partial victory in one of several lawsuits.  Jobs or no, this controversy may not be settled for years.  What ever happened to common sense?

Similar legal processes have been used to delay and defeat nuclear power.  We must pay attention to this, and the first step in getting the cheap and reliable energy that will be needed is to educate the public.]

1/28/10, A13, "W.VA. Wind farm agrees to protect bats" – Beech Ridge Energy of Rockville, MD, a wind power developer, settled a lawsuit by environmental groups concerned about potential harm to an endangered bat species.  24 turbines will not be built, and 31 proposed sites abandoned at a West Virginia wind farm.  Other turbines will be operated only during daylight hours for the period of the year (April 1 to mid-November) the bats are not hibernating.

[Presumably this arrangement will make power produced from these facilities even less economic than it would be otherwise, although the wind turbines will be able to operate – wind conditions permitting – during peak air-conditioning hours.  And what about birds, don’t they need protection too?]

1/28/10, A12  "GM's Md. plant plans could benefit Del. Workers," Andrew Eder – Union rules give preference to workers in the region of a particular plant, so workers laid off from the Boxwood plant have a chance to be hired at a GM plant in Maryland that is slated to produce motors for electric cars. 

       Long-time workers have an incentive to work a few more years to qualify for a full pension, [which would add to the financial pressures on GM.]  The new facility is to be funded in part by a Department of Energy grant, [so we're all paying for it.]

        [If electric cars catch on with taxpayer help, the frequency of electrical blackouts will increase.  Just one more reason to build new power plants ASAP.]

1/27/10, A12, “Markell takes hybrid for a spin: State courts car developer during tour across country,” Jeff Montgomery – Washington state-based AFS Trinity is promoting a hybrid automobile with a patented special feature, "super capacitor" electric storage devices that are used during power surges.  This reduces strain on batteries, increasing battery life.   AFS could start making cars, license their patents, or go out of business.  [The current situation is remindful of the early days of the automotive industry when many start-up companies failed to make the grade.]

       According to AFS Chairman Edward Furia, a plug-in hybrid with the AFS design would cost about $8,700 more than a Saturn Vue hybrid [which in turn is probably more expensive than a conventional car], but cost less to run.  And “Federal tax incentives would offset most of the extra costs.”  [There is no reason taxpayers should underwrite such incentives, let buyers decide what types of vehicles they want.]

        [The need for electricity in the U.S. could increase greatly if plug-in electric cars gain widespread acceptance, and will grow steadily in any case.  We can help to meet that need in two ways: (1) win the debate with climate alarmists and stomp out the idea that "renewable energy" can replace dependable energy sources; (2) jump start a resurgence of nuclear power.  Both solutions are covered in past microblogs and will continue to be emphasized.]

1/26/10 - Second day in a row without anything significant in the News Journal about climate or energy.  It's a chance to write about "Hormesis," a word that is probably not in your dictionary.  The concept is that a small amount of something (e.g., one pill a day) may be harmless or even beneficial, despite the fact that a large amount of the same thing (100 pills all at once) would be lethal.  Hormesis is important for nuclear energy, because a huge amount of money can be spent trying to prevent exposure to low-level radiation that would actually do no harm.

       Years ago, there were no data on the possible danger of low-level radiation, so the difference between zero levels of radiation (obviously harmless) and high levels (e.g., 50% fatality rate with exposure to 500,000 millirems) was extrapolated on a straight-line basis. Using such a procedure, aka "linear no threshold (LNT)," 10,000 millirems would kill 1% and 1,000 millirems would kill 0.1%.

       However, the LNT assumption is flat out wrong, because of hormesis.  "Cancer rates among people living in the Rocky Mountain States, which have the highest radiation exposure in the country, are 1/3 lower than the rest of the nation, while people living in the Louisiana Delta, which has the lowest exposure, have the highest rates of cancer in the country.  (Terrestrial Energy, William Tucker, 2008, p. 323).  Average exposure is about 350 millirems, but people living in the Ural Mountains receive about 10,000 millirems without apparent harm.

       There is much more, but this is a microblog.

1/25/10 - interesting news day for The News Journal, but nothing significant about climate change or energy.  So, let's consider a 2008 book – “Terrestrial Energy” by William Tucker -- that can help the U.S. move ahead on nuclear power.

       • Nuclear power plants are very safe if they are decently designed and competently operated. The Chernobyl design was poor, with no containment. Three Mile Island failure was the result of poorly trained operators, and a poorly designed control room.

       • Current operation of nuclear power plants is very safe with highly trained operators, including veterans of the U.S. nuclear submarine fleet.  There is continual training and re-training using mock-up control rooms, much like on-the-ground training of airline pilots.

       • The Price-Anderson law whereby the U.S. federal government provided back-up insurance is gone.  Now, each reactor has $300 million insurance from private insurance companies, plus $100 million back-up from each other reactor.  This is over $10 billion total.  Operators of nuclear power plants have a strong incentive to cooperate in safety matters.

       • Nuclear plant uptime has improved from about 60% (similar to other power plants) to about 90%.  Emphasis is on preventive maintenance vs. fixing things when they break down. 

• Spent nuclear materials are stored in water pools for months.  Then, after a large decrease in radiation intensity, they are placed in caskets, inside concrete where they could be kept onsite for 50 to 100 years.  However, we should be recycling nuclear materials, as is done by France, Britain, Russia and Canada.  After recycling and re-use, the leftover materials in France can be stored in one room.

       • Recycling was prohibited during the Carter administration for fear enemies could get bomb-making materials. This is not a problem, because spent nuclear material contains four plutonium isotopes and only one is useful for bombs.  Separation would be prohibitively difficult.

        In summary, the U.S. should join the rest of the world in recycling spent nuclear materials, and make whatever changes are needed so that nuclear power plants can be built in a reasonable amount of time.

1/24/10, E1/E6, "Lower energy projections put brakes on power lines," Aaron Nathans -

Regional power grid operator PJM “is dialing back its projections of future energy use amid a sluggish economy, increases in energy efficiency and the new economics of energy in the age of carbon consciousness." Plans for new power lines are being reassessed, especially power lines for electricity generated in the mid-west. Carol Overland, an attorney for opponents of a large power line in New Jersey, reportedly views the reassessment as “a chance to wean the country off fossil fuels and build the infrastructure around locally sited renewables without having to erect giant electrified structures in peoples’ backyards.”

        [The sluggish economy should go away unless perpetuated by misguided government policies.  Let’s hope that pressure from Tea Partiers and others will help in that regard – see next entry.] 

        The Department of Energy now forecasts that energy consumption will grow at a rate of 1% per year through 2035, vs. an annual growth rate of 1.8% projected in 2005.  Reasons cited for the changed outlook: (1) lower economic growth, (2) rising cost of coal-fired electricity due to “new pollution standards and the potential of a national carbon allowance trading program,” (3) new energy-saving standards for appliances and lighting, and (4) “smart meters” that will help cut peak power demands.

        Most of the people interviewed for the article favor the rethinking that is going on.  However, Bob Dobkin, a spokesman for Pepco Holdings [a large energy delivery company], sounds concerned.  “Do people want to have their lights on or not? Or do you not want that, because there’s coal-fired generation.”  [Bravo!]

        [Slow growth in energy demand can be expected if decisions are made that result in higher energy prices.  And closing coal-fired power plants, mandating increased use of renewable energy, etc. would surely raise prices.  Such decisions should not be made based on unproven theories and visceral feelings about fossil fuels, including – ugh – coal.]

        There is only one mention of nuclear power in the article, namely the addition of a third unit at the Calvert Cliffs plant [southeast of Washington, D.C. on the Patuxent River].  However, it is reportedly uncertain whether this expansion will proceed on schedule.  [Why not build a nuclear power plant in Delaware? It would make more sense than the wind power projects that are being proposed.]

1/24/10, A1/A22, "Del. Patriots shun debate in favor of proclamations," J.L. Miller – An excellent article [but only a small portion appears on the front page, with the rest buried in another section] about the 9-12 Delaware Patriots (now joined by the Delaware Tea Party), who have cast aside the “Delaware Way” for a more confrontational style.

        The two groups staged a “Welcome Back” rally Jan. 12 in front of Legislative Hall, and “presented legislators with lists of demands, not requests.”  Their issues include voter initiatives and referendums, gun rights, open primaries, and restrictions on illegal immigrants.  [Hopefully, these groups will also embrace sane energy and fiscal policies that can get the local and national economy back on track.]

1/23/10, A1/A5, "Valero nears deal on plant," Jeff Montgomery - PBF Investments is negotiating to buy the shutdown refinery at Delaware City.  Governor Jack Markell is credited with being “instrumental in these negotiations,” and the Delaware Economic Development Office has estimated that “the shutdown would cost the state’s economy $882 million.” 

Area residents reportedly approve because of restored jobs, despite restored emissions from the plant.  [If the deal goes through and the refinery starts back up, they will start complaining about smells from the plant again soon enough.]

PBS is a partnership, including Petroplus, Europe's largest refiner.  Thomas O'Malley is chairman of both Petroplus and PBF, and was the top officer of Premcor when they owned and operated the refinery, so PBF should know what it is doing.

       Although the tone of the article is upbeat, reporter Jeff Montgomery sounds a note of caution.  “While state officials are eager to see the plant saved, a restart would put the plant back among Delaware’s top sources of toxic and smog-forming pollutants. [Perhaps, but a reasonable balance between economic and environmental concerns is essential to keep the economy going.]

1/23/10, A10, "Peer-reviewed climate views are no longer trustworthy" - We have to love this heading (provided by The News Journal) for a letter to the editor by Jose Alvarez.  The letter replies to William Donohue's criticism of an Op-Ed piece by the prolific writer, William Morris.

       Donohue’s column quoted a statement from Wikipedia (a user-generated content site on the Internet) that the Medieval War Period was cooler than today.  Alvarez refutes the error, and another letter writer suggests that Donohue undermined his credibility by citing a source that Delaware students are taught is “unacceptable . . . for even the most basic of research papers.”

        Skeptics are beginning to dominate the letters to the editor section, and we should keep it up until we win.

1/22/10, A13, "East power goal: 20% wind by 2024" (Jeff Montgomery) – A government report assumes thousands of wind farms across the East to increase wind power to the 20% level by 2024.  [What a nightmare!  Wind turbines everywhere you look.]

       Achieving this result would require “billions in spending for transmission lines and other needs.” [In fact, the report says up to $90 billion in investment, much of it funded by the federal government (aka taxpayers).  And remember that wind turbines must be stopped when the wind is blowing too hard, and won't turn if there is too little wind. Let's hope that sensible Americans join in a "Whack a Mole" game, knocking this idea out of sight.]

        The report was from the Department of Energy and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.  [The DOE should be high on the "Government Department abolition list.”  As for the NREL, it is funded by DOE, but run by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, which in turn . . .] 

        Predictably, there is this statement [to intimidate anyone who might be worried about the high cost of wind power]:  "Scientists around the globe have concluded that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants are trapping more heat in the atmosphere, warming the world's oceans in ways that could cause dramatic climate changes worldwide." [No mention is made of the many scientists who think otherwise.]

        Chad Tolman of the Sierra Club Delaware Chapter is cited as an enthusiastic supporter of wind power, especially for Delaware as “it’s a coastal state that is very vulnerable to climate change and sea level rise.”

[No members of Climate Change Common Sense were contacted for this story, but if we had been our comments might have been along the lines of our statements at a public hearing on January 12: In a nutshell, we question the purported link between human-caused carbon dioxide and global warming, and oppose the present requirement to buy 20% of energy in 2019 from "green" sources (wind turbines, solar panels and biomass).  To the extent that more “green” energy is to be purchased, we suggest expansion of nuclear power, which is dependable, economical, and safe.  For the full statements, see http://www.s-a-f-e.org/events.htm.]

1/21/10, A5, "Climate panel embarrassed by error-filled paragraph” (AP) reports the discovery of “five glaring errors” in one paragraph of “the world’s most authoritative report on global warming” (referring to an 838-page report issued in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC).  Notably, it was predicted that glaciers in the Himalayas would melt away by 2035, which may have reflected a transposition of a date “in a study from Russia that says glaciers could come close to disappearing by 2350,” and were melting faster than glaciers elsewhere.  [According to an earlier report in the London Times, the primary source for the error-filled paragraph was a 1999 news story in New Scientist, which in turn was based on “a short telephone interview” with a “little known Indian scientist.”]   

       Patrick Michaels, a scholar at the Cato Institute and “global warming skeptic,” is reported to have called for the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, to resign.  However, “the mistakes were found not by skeptics like Michaels, but by a few of the scientists themselves.”  [Michaels holds a PhD degree in ecological climatology. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and has served as a contributing author and reviewer for the IPCC.]

      While apologizing for the errors, the “climate panel and even the scientist who publicized the errors said they are not significant in comparison to the entire report” and “do not negate the fact that world-wide, glaciers are melting faster than ever.” [From what we have read, this trend is by no means universal.]

      Moreover, “a number of scientists” have reportedly said "the mistakes do not invalidate the main conclusion that global warming is without a doubt man-made and a threat."  [That assertion is the big error.  Ask 31,000 scientists.]

1/21/10, A10,  "DuPont to expand solar film production," Andrew Eder - DuPont plans to invest $175 million in its Circleville Ohio plant, backed by a $50.7 million tax credit.  [Still not a free market.  Taxpayers are being forced to support an uneconomical and undependable form of energy.  The unwritten story is the danger of electrical outages as demand increases up to about 50% in the next 25 years. What we need is government undoing.]

1/20/10, A9, "2000-2009 warmest decade on record" (AP) - "The 2000-2009 decade was the warmest on record, easily surpassing the previous hottest decade - the 1990s - researchers said Tuesday in a report providing fresh evidence that the planet may be warming at a potentially disastrous rate."  Source: a study by the National Climactic Data Center (NCDC).

[The phrase "on record" indicates that the study is about global temperatures “since records began” in 1880 rather than temperatures since the Earth’s inception.  Indirect records show considerably warmer temperatures in the past, e.g., about 125,000 years ago. This information is from ice cores - the records that Al Gore used to imply that high carbon dioxide concentrations caused high temperatures, although ocean temperature changes actually preceded carbon dioxide changes - undoubtedly due to the solubility change with temperature.

       The report is also misleading in another way.  By averaging data by decades, the NCDC avoids acknowledging that the warming trend stopped about ten years ago.  Annual data from the series (available on line) show that global temperatures in 2009 were cooler than those in 2005, 1998, 2003 and 2002, and tied with 2006.  Also, the average temperature in 2005 (supposedly the hottest year on record) was a mere 1.1⁰ F above the 1901-2000 average combined land and ocean temperature of 56.9⁰ F.  

       Calling this annual extension of the NCDC’s data series “fresh evidence that the planet may be warming at a potentially disastrous rate” is a bit of a stretch, we would say.  Researchers?  Spin Doctors more likely, wasting tax dollars.

       Bottom line:  Don't worry about the climate; the risk of a fiscal meltdown should be of far greater concern.]

1/18/10, A15, "Undeniable Climate Data," Paul Donohue Op-Ed is devoted to criticism of "Thankfully, Copenhagen Failed,” a 1/6/10 Op-Ed by Bill Morris, which Donohue characterizes as “full of misinformation.”  Here is Morris’s rebuttal:

       Granted that the U.S. did not bind itself to the Kyoto Protocol, this country has done plenty to limit CO2 emissions. Ethanol mandates and subsidies, average mileage requirements for new motor vehicles, and restrictions on development of untapped domestic petroleum reserves come to mind. The cost has certainly added up to “many billions of dollars,” if not more.

       Here is a valid point: "New nuclear plants would be good, but they're expensive and slow to install."  But a major reason for high costs and delays is obstruction by anti-nuclear zealots, and this country cannot afford to continue putting up with that.  If severe electrical outages result, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and others will share the blame.

       Why can’t “renewable” energy projects be undertaken without “political and economic incentives,” including Cap and Trade?  Inexpensive energy is needed, which the free market can provide.  Let the best projects win.

      Morris did not impugn the motives of scientists as such; he merely quoted several climate alarmists who seem more interested in getting their way than finding the right answers.

        It is well documented that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today’s climate.  A Wikipedia.com entry saying otherwise is hardly persuasive.  There is also ample evidence that the Earth’s climate has fluctuated over time, and no reason to believe that scientists can accurately predict whether global temperatures will rise or fall over, say, the next 100 years.

Donohue quotes New Scientist magazine as stating that if "Earth warms 7 degrees Fahrenheit this century, new deserts will make it mostly uninhabitable."  Wrong, because warmer means wetter.  Also, rising CO2 levels stimulate vegetation and would therefore contribute to greening of the deserts.

1/17/10, A2, "Antarctica goes green with launch of wind farm" – Halfway between U.S. and New Zealand science bases on the Ross Sea Coast of Antarctica, a $11 million wind farm has been built to decrease the risk of polluting the environment with oil spills and reduce carbon emissions. The facility will provide 11% of the electricity used by the two bases.

[A million dollars for each % sounds pricey.  As for reducing the risk of oil spills, why not just be more careful? This environmental feel-good hype might lead one to question the value of the Antarctic science gig.  And it exemplifies the fact that a small percentage of the Earth’s inhabitants may have ulterior motives for resisting the downfall of the human-caused global warming theory.]

Oil & Gas Journal Editor's Perspective, Week of 1/11/10 issue - Editor Bob Tippee is concerned that failure of healthcare legislation [fingers crossed!] will lead to a reinvigorated push for Cap & Trade.  He says the European Union has lost 5 billion Euros from fraudulent trades.  Criminals were buying emission allowances in countries where they didn't have to pay the Value Added Tax (VAT), reselling in VAT countries, collecting the tax from buyers, and absconding with the money.

[Corruption of this type would be inevitable with a “Cap & Trade” system, and the windfall profits for traders and financial firms would be far greater.  No wonder there is so much “business” support for this pernicious proposal.]

1/16/10, A11, "In Iran, education is grounds for incarceration," Paul Greenberg column is primarily about Iran government actions against those who get high marks in school and show any signs of thinking for themselves. 

Toward the end, Greenberg shifts to our world:  "The American method of suppressing dissent is more subtle and effective," he says, namely ostracism of those who deviate from intellectual fashion.  He cites the tactics used by “scientists” at the "formerly respected" climate analysis operation at East Anglia, as revealed by recently surfaced e-mails.  In brief, “anyone who harbored doubts about manmade climate change was to be treated as a heretic” and “reduced to unpersons in the scientific hierarchy, their work unpublished.”

        [The tide is turning, apparently, and climate alarmists are hunkered down, waiting for Climategate to blow over.  It's up to us skeptics to step up communication with the public.  When there is nothing different to say, repeat what you said before, perhaps in a different way.

 In a few months or a few years, the man-made climate idea will collapse, as did Eugenics – the idea that “inferior people” should have fewer children to keep the human race from going downhill – which was supported by many prominent people in the 1930s.  After World War II, as the late Michael Crichton notes in an appendix to “State of Fear” (Harper Collins, 2004), “nobody was a eugenicist and nobody had ever been a eugenicist.”]

1/15/10, A11/A14,  "Fisker, battery maker have deal," Andrew Eder - One day after talks were broken off with one battery supplier for its planned plug-in hybrid cars, Fisker Automotive announced a deal with another one.  The new supplier is A123 Systems (an MIT spinoff company).  Fisker plans to introduce an $87,900 car in September, and later to produce a less expensive model at the former GM Boxwood Road plant. [It is doubtful that either model would be marketable without federal tax credits for purchasers.]

Fisker will receive a $529 million loan from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to buy and retool the Boxwood Road plant.  It has received financing from several venture capital firms, but the DOE wants more equity capital.  A123 will help by investing up to $23 million ($13M cash, $10M stock) in Fisker.  By the way, A123 received a $249 million DOE grant last August. [Got all that?  Friends have reminded me that similar arrangements and the government control that went with them were characteristic of Fascism.]

[What is the excuse for government grants, loans and tax credits? The “green” jobs involved do not sound like much of a bargain, especially after considering associated job losses elsewhere in the economy.   Surely not the effect on global temperature, if any, and there are far more effective ways to reduce oil imports such as relaxing restrictions on development of untapped domestic oil and gas resources. 

The proliferation of plug-in cars could exacerbate the developing shortage of electrical capacity due to misplaced emphasis on wind turbines and solar panels.  More economic power sources will be needed, including fossil fuel and nuclear power plants.  We hope to foster a better public understanding of the advantages of nuclear power. 

1/14/10, A9, "Quakes, floods, hurricanes; 'It doesn't get any worse' (AP) – The toll from a big earthquake in Haiti has been very high.  Poverty contributed to low building standards before the quake, and has slowed rescue and relief operations.  A similar pattern can be seen with the hurricanes and flooding of recent years. "It starts with poverty, includes deforestation, poor building standards, low literacy rates and then comes back to poverty."

        [Affluence is a big help in maintaining a good environment.  Haiti is an extreme example of the opposite.  Extreme environmentalists would have this country become more like Haiti.  Consider the push to shut down coal-fired power plants, which produce nearly half of our electricity.  That would decrease pollution somewhat; it would also predictably lead to electrical blackouts and contribute to the decline of the U.S. industrial base.

This country can afford to put up with stringent environmental standards because we are affluent, but the cost-benefit ratio needs to be kept reasonable. We certainly should not put up with a ridiculous threat by the EPA to declare life-giving carbon dioxide a pollutant.]

1/13/10 - No coverage re global warming or energy policy today, but we will point out that the News Journal did not have a reporter at last night's Wilmington public hearing re Delmarva Power's 10-year energy purchase plan. Too bad; they missed some citizen input (3-minute comments) that deviated from the standard and oft-repeated environmentalist talking points. 

Three members of "Climate Common Sense", a Delaware area organization, questioned the purported link between carbon dioxide and global warming.  We also opposed the present requirement to buy 20% of energy in 2019 from "green" sources (wind turbines, solar panels and biomass).  And to the extent that more “green” energy is purchased, we suggested expansion of nuclear power, which is dependable, economical, and safe.

1/12/10, A1/A2, "N.J. tells nuclear plant to build cooling tower," Jeff Montgomery - New Jersey regulators have recommended a cooling-water tower at the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant (one of the nation’s oldest) to reduce "thermal pollution.” The plant takes in 662 million gallons of water daily from Forked River off Barnegat Bay (on the Jersey Shore) for cooling purposes, a practice long criticized by fishing and environmental groups. [We wonder whether energy from the hot water could be extracted in some manner, with a resultant economic benefit.]

 The new cooling system would reportedly cost hundreds of millions of dollars, with construction disrupting operations for years.  Exelon warns that it would “have no alternative” but to close the plant, which would increase consumer electricity costs by $190 million (annually?) and eliminate 1,700 jobs directly and indirectly. A public hearing is scheduled on February 24.

[In April 2009, after a lengthy review, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a 20-year extension of the operating permit for the Oyster Creek plant.  Now critics are apparently attacking it at the state level.  Let’s hope a lot of people attend the hearing, and let the regulators have it about the economic impact of this proposal.]

1/11/10, A1/A2, "For auto industry, the word is small (AP) – “Electric, hybrid and small cars will grab center stage at the Detroit auto show this week, as the industry adapts to a world reshaped by the Great Recession and environmental worries." [Sounds like Horse and Rabbit stew made from one Horse and one Rabbit.  Polls show most Americans would willingly spend almost nothing to respond to climate change, which is predictably going to happen anyway.]

       Much of the show’s buzz is expected to come from electric cars, which will be “expensive” (e.g., about $40,000 for a Chevy Volt) but will qualify for up to $7,500 in tax credits.  [Presumably these cars would not be purchased without the credits, which will be unwillingly paid for by taxpayers, and they may still be a tough sell.  What a bummer if a lot of these cars get sold and the country starts experiencing power outages.]

       Of local interest: Fisker Automotive, a plug-in hybrid electric car startup announced plans in October to retool and reopen the General Motors Boxwood Road plant. [Delawareans can hope that Fisker will have some kind of advantage.  It will need one to compete successfully with the experienced automakers, which can afford to lose money on electric cars in order to curry favor with the government.]

1/10/10, E5, "Showdown in the desert: tortoises vs. clean power" (AP) – The Sierra Club et al. want a proposed solar energy complex in the Mojave desert relocated to preserve what they call a near-pristine home for rare plants and wildlife, including desert tortoises (federally protected), Western burrowing owls, and bighorn sheep.  Despite favoring solar energy projects, they say this one is “located in the wrong place.”  It could reportedly take months for state and federal regulators considering the plan to make a decision on the tortoises’ fate.

[An interesting version of NIMBY, pitting environmentalists against each other.  A more important conflict is between environmentalists who favor nuclear power because it doesn't emit CO2 and others who cannot get over their superstitious opposition to something they don't understand.]

1/10/10, B1 cont’d on B8, "Valero likely to be torn down," Jeff Montgomery – The Delaware City Refinery will be dismantled unless a buyer surfaces soon.  European refiner.  European refiner Petroplus has inspected the facility but made no offer.  Delaware state officials are concerned about the loss of hundreds of Delaware jobs and the impact on the state economy.

1/9/10, A6,  "Gore, DuPont due tax credits" (Bloomberg News) – As part of the $787 billion stimulus bill in 2009, $2.3 billion in tax credits will be spread among 283 companies.  The largest DuPont project was a tax credit to cover 30% of the cost of a capacity expansion for high-performance polyvinyl films (used in solar photovoltaic modules) at the Circleville, Ohio plant.  [If such a project makes sense, why should DuPont need a tax credit?]

The object of the tax credits, according to the article, is "to leverage clean-energy manufacturing projects in 43 states,” which will supposedly “create more than 17,000 jobs by 2014.”  The announcement came out on the same day as a U.S. Department of Labor report that 85,000 jobs were lost in December 2009. 

        [Claims of creating jobs are dubious.  A Spanish Economist has estimated that every job created by government subsidy of alternative energy results in the loss of 2.2 jobs elsewhere.]

        The Administration plans ask for a $5 billion expansion of tax credits to encourage alternative energy technology because the original offer was oversubscribed. [Signs should be placed all over Washington D.C  "When you are in a hole, stop digging."]

1/8/10 - This was not in the News Journal, but it should and perhaps soon may be, with a heading like: "Electricity shortage looms."

According to “Terrestrial Energy,” an excellent 2008 book by William Tucker, the on-stream time for nuclear power plants averaged only 60% in 1991. With improvements in operating procedures by retired nuclear submarine veterans and others, it was raised to 90% by 2001; "coal, responding to the competition has pushed (from 60%) up to 70%.”

Tucker says these improvements have added the equivalent of 23 new 1,000-megawatt reactors to the national grid.  That’s outstanding, but there is just so much room for further improvement.  Installation of new generating capacity must be accelerated to meet future needs.

            Instead, we see a push for uneconomical, undependable power sources, notably wind turbines and solar panels.  The main justification is to limit carbon dioxide emissions so as to supposedly slow global warming, while somehow ignoring nuclear power as a more viable alternative to fossil fuel power.

  Here is one more incentive to question the unproven link between manmade carbon dioxide and global warming.  Forget CO2, keep the lights on!

1/7/10, A1 (cont’d on A4), "Chill out - cold stretch is here to stay awhile" (AP) acknowledges chilly winter weather around the globe, but never mind because "experts say the cold snap doesn't contradict global warming at all - it's just a blip in the long term heating trend.”  Two scientists are quoted in support of this conclusion, and there is a general reference to “experts interviewed by the Associated Press.”

[We doubt the AP looked for experts who question “the long term heating trend,” but some top-flight scientists do just that. See, e.g., “The Climate Science Isn’t Settled,” Richard Lindzen (Professor of Meteorology, MIT), Wall Street Journal, 11/30/09.

Moreover, it is a mistake to assume that recent climate trends will continue/accelerate without looking at the longer-term record.  Remember the concerns about disastrous global cooling that came into vogue just as a cooling trend from about 1940 to 1970 was about to end?

Warming resumed from about 1970 to 2000, but has paused since then.  No one can be sure what will happen next, and it remains to be seen whether the weather this winter is “a blip.”  See the column in yesterday’s News Journal.]

1/6/10, A13,  "Thankfully, Copenhagen failed" – Op-Ed piece by William E. Morris covers the bases, concluding that global warming is not bad, and that we are not causing it.  Also, no one knows what will happen to the climate in the future and there is surely no need to worry about it. "The warming period may resume, and eventually reach the benign climate that our ancestors enjoyed during the Medieval Warm Period.  Or, there may be a very slow descent into another ice age."  [A third possibility would be a new Little Ice Age, in view of the present cold weather and the low activity of the Sun.] 

            [The News Journal's editorial pages have commendably covered both sides of the global warming debate. We need to continue taking advantage of this opportunity. For this column and some prior letters on global warming/energy and other topics, see 

http://www.s-a-f-e.org/letters.htm.]

1/6/10, B1, "Across Delaware, a lingering cold,” Angie Basiouny – This article reports on the “cold weather that has gripped the region for several weeks” and some of the problems that have been caused.  [No mention of the freeze down south, an exceptionally cold winter in Europe, and heavy snow in Beijing.  Also, no suggestion that such conditions are out of line with predictions of the global warming alarmists.]

1/6/10, A5, "Tribes seek protection to block Cape Wind plan" (AP) -Two Indian tribes say that wind turbines in Nantucket Sound would interfere with their sacred rituals. Their objections harmonize with opposition by the Kennedy family and others who consider wind turbines to be unsightly.  [They would also be uneconomical, unjustified, unnecessary, and unnerving for birds.  Better a nuclear power plant, which would be more economical and have a smaller environmental footprint.]

1/3/10, A6,  "One family at a time, Sweden helping U.S. think green" (Washington Post) – Four Virginia families selected by the Swedish embassy are being coached by Swedish families to lower their use of fossil fuels.  Thus, one of the “Climate Pilot” families is installing a geothermal heat pump in their front yard and will cut back on consumption of meat.  The object is to reduce carbon emissions and thereby prevent global warming.  [It has not been demonstrated that global warming is bad, nor that reduced carbon emissions will prevent it.]

            Participation is voluntary, each family is linked with a Swedish family, and they are apparently enjoying the experience.  “But it remains unclear whether there is enough grass-roots support for a dramatic change in U.S. climate policy.”  [As the word “policy” suggests, such a change is improbable without government coercion. Equally telling is the reference to “European Union rules” that “require everything from energy-efficient building codes to disclosing a home’s overall carbon output when it goes on the market.”]

            In 2005, according to the article, greenhouse gas [carbon?] emissions were 23.5 metric tons per capita in the U.S. vs. 10.3 in Europe and 7.4 in Sweden.  The relatively high level of U.S. emissions is attributed to “what we burn for fuel and how much we drive.”  [A key reason that “fossil fuels account for nearly three quarters of our fuel mix” vs. “just more than half of Europe's" is that Europe makes more use of nuclear power.]

1/2/10 - No mention of climate or energy in today's News Journal, and no letters to the editor on any subject (which is unusual).  But last night, Fox News aired a one-hour TV special on global warming, including interviews with both alarmists and skeptics. 

Some of the Climategate e-mails were shown, including one by Michael Mann of Penn State (author of the discredited "Hockey Stick" plot of temperature versus year).

             Estimated cost of the "Cap and Trade" bill passed by the U.S. House was quoted as about $800 to more than $3,000 per family per year, which would cause most Americans to rebel. 

            The Senate is not disposed to pass "Cap and Trade", so the administration is threatening to have the EPA regulate CO2 emissions as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.  [A ploy to force the Senate to pass "Cap and Trade" - can you say "Backfire"?]

1/1/10, A1, cont’d on A4,  "Bird count tallies its 110th Christmas," Molly Murray - The author is one of the News Journal's leading climate alarmists, so we were not surprised to see observed changes in bird counts over the years attributed to global warming. Thus, Murray cites a February 2009 Audubon Society study showing that three species shifted their ranges about 250 miles north over the past 40 years. "The big question,” she goes on to speculate, “is how far they will be able to move in the face of climate change before they run out of habitat, food or even luck." [We fail to see a problem here.  Climate is always changing, as it has throughout the ages, and bird species can and will adapt.]

12/31/09, A10, "Deal to save GE solar-panel facility," Andrew Eder – A Taiwanese company, Motech Industries Inc., will buy GE's solar cell plant in Glasgow DE, which was about to be closed due to unprofitability.  The plant employs 75 workers, down from a peak of over 600. Motech may be seeking to satisfy “Buy American” rules in the federal stimulus package.

[Both solar panel and windmill energy sources would have very small niche markets without mandates and subsidies, which helps to explain eco-industry support for government programs to foster renewable energy. We should take advantage of every opportunity to slow down and derail the global warming freight train.  See yesterday's micro-blog.]

12/30/09, A8, "Delmarva must air its 10-year plan," Aaron Nathans – Under a new state law, Delmarva Power must submit a 10-year energy purchase plan to the Public Service Commission by May 31.  Public hearings will be held in each county soon so customers can “speak their minds on how the utility should buy its power.”  

One question is whether Delmarva should build new in-state generating capacity, such as a power plant in Sussex County to be fueled by natural gas. [Yes, please do.] 

Another is whether they should buy more "carbon-free generation,” apparently over and above the already mandated increase to 20% renewable energy sources by 2019. [Buying more renewable energy would compound the error of the present requirement to buy uneconomical energy.  Also, note that renewable energy does not include nuclear power, which is probably the best alternative to fossil fuel power.  We should attend the 7 PM meeting Jan 12 at the Carvel State Office Building, 820 N. French St., to explain why we oppose high cost electricity.]

12/29/09 - No news items to comment on; the barrage of global warming coverage seems to have died down now the Copenhagen summit is over.  Perhaps the frigid winter weather has something to do with it as well.

Re Climategate e-mails posted on the Internet, one analyst reports an exchange about a journal that published something questioning the work of climate alarmists.

• Phil Jones (of East Anglia University in the UK):  "Climate Research" needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor."

12/28/09 - Nothing seen on climate or energy.  This provides an opportunity to comment on the News Journal's one-sided coverage of climate.  The voluminous output of climate alarmists is well covered, especially by three reporters:  Jeff Montgomery, Molly Murray, and Aaron Nathans, but little is heard from the large and growing number of skeptics in either the news or feature articles. 

True, it was reported that many Americans are not buying the extreme predictions of climate alarmists, but the thrust was that these poor saps are being shortsighted and should listen to the “experts.”  12/18/09, A1 (cont’d on A6), "Green isn't your thing? Blame it on your psyche" (AP).

Even Climategate has been portrayed as a diversion rather than a revelation of serious misconduct by some of those experts. See, for example, the 12/21 column by Michael Mann of Penn State.  Mann developed a notorious "Hockey Stick" graph, which showed low temperatures until recently, then a steep increase.  The "Hockey Stick" has been discredited.  Mann's faulty analysis (described as a “trick” in one of the e-mails) was apparently designed to hide a Medieval Warm Period that was warmer than today's climate.

It has long been known that climate alarmists were engaging in unscientific behavior, and Climategate makes it obvious.  We hope the News Journal will acknowledge that fact and start giving more balanced coverage in its climate news.

12/27/09, A1 (cont’d on A24),  "Caught in the shifting politics of sand,” Molly Murray - discusses the pros and cons of trying to offset beach erosion by sand replenishment. “Delaware has been struggling to hold on to its coast since the 1930s,” reports Murray, “and maybe even earlier.”  And, of course, rising sea levels are linked to global warming.

             Between 1950 and 1986, the sea level at Lewes DE rose 3.1 millimeters per year. [If the trend continued, this would work out to about one foot per century.  However, nothing is said about sea level changes since 1986.]

And “with climate change, sea level could rise faster – possibly by 23 inches by 2100.” [The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects a one foot rise in sea levels by 2100, suggesting a 50% chance of less than one foot and a 50% chance of more.  Climate alarmists automatically pick an upper-end number.]

12/26/09, A9, Windpower in Del. closer to reality, Aaron Nathans reports on the status of wind power projects that will sell electricity to Delmarva Power. 

Armenia Mountain in Pennsylvania became completely operational last week. “When the wind is blowing hard enough,” the project will produce “enough [electricity] to power 45,000 homes.” [Output is zero when the wind stops or is blowing too hard.] 

Construction will start in 2010 on Roth Rock and Eastern Wind in western Maryland, after developers successfully lobbied the state for permission to proceed “without a lengthy environmental review.”  The NRG-Bluewater offshore project is scheduled to begin generating electricity in 2013.

“We’re excited about bringing wind power to the region,” says Delmarva Power President Gary Stockbridge.  The article also mentions the real point: Delmarva will meet state renewable-energy purchase requirements through participation in these projects. 

[This region will need much more electricity in coming years, and all sources should be allowed to compete on an equal footing.  Absent government intervention, it is unlikely that the wind farms would be economically competitive. Delaware residents will bear the resultant cost increases through higher power rates and/or taxes.  For what purpose, people should be asking. 

Reduced carbon emissions from fossil fuel power plants would not materially slow global warming, assuming this currently stopped trend is destined to resume.  And in any case, we think there is a better alternative than wind power.

Nuclear power is dependable, safe and economic, although it has been rendered more expensive by unnecessary delays due to environmental opposition.  And some climate alarmists are now supporting nuclear power plants because they do not generate carbon emissions. We tend to doubt the sincerity of those who continue to oppose nuclear power while claiming that carbon dioxide is harmful.]

12/25/09 – Nothing of climate or energy interest found on this slushy Christmas day.  Here are some comments on energy anyway.  A phenomenon called "Hormesis" has been found to apply to nuclear radiation.  The evidence is overwhelming.

            With hormesis, a large amount of something is harmful, but a small amount is beneficial.  This applies to medicine, for example.  With radiation hormesis, we have no need to worry about small levels of radiation.  At present, opposition to nuclear radiation is greatly overdone.  Nuclear energy should be allowed to compete fairly with other forms of energy.

12/24/09 – No one-sided climate stories found today.  Maybe the climate alarmists are on vacation.  A time to be grateful for the benign climate that we have, and can expect to continue for a long time.  Merry Christmas!

12/23/09, A1 (cont’d on A12), “2009 sloshes on to its soggy end,” Jeff Montgomery – Montgomery, the News Journal’s no. 1 climate alarmist, goes on and on about a wetter than average year and previous droughts, all of which he manages to blame on global warming. "Many researchers believe that rising global temperatures, brought on by carbon dioxide and other pollutants in the air, will lead to more weather extremes.  Likely symptoms include more frequent droughts and more rain arriving in heavy deluges."

            [Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than oxygen.  Both are essential for life as we know it.  The evidence is strong that the main cause of global warming is increased activity of the Sun, and not rising carbon dioxide levels.  The linkage of weather extremes with global warming has been thoroughly debunked.  See, e.g., "Unstoppable Global Warming" by Singer & Avery.   

             Montgomery may not realize how lucky we are to be living in such a benign climate.  Human beings have flourished during an unusually warm period that cannot be expected to continue. ”Climate Change is Nature’s Way: It’s our good luck one of Earth’s many ice ages ended 12,000 years ago,” Howard Bloom, Wall Street Journal, 12/17/09.]

12/23/09, A20, Dubious “wins” on Copenhagen and healthcare, George Will – The president characterized the outcome of the Copenhagen climate change summit as “unprecedented,” but Will has a different view.  “Actually, the mountain beneath the summit - a mountain of manufactured hysteria, predictable cupidity, antic demagoguery and dubious science --- labored mightily and gave birth to a mouselet, a 12-paragraph document committing the signatories to . . . make a list . . . of the goals they have no serious intention of trying to meet.”

12/22/09, A10,  "Wind turbine project loses a big player," Aaron Nathans (News Journal) – The DelaWind project has withdrawn "its application for a $350,000 investment from the state economic development office as well as an application for tax credits from the U.S. Department of Energy.”  This happened after Amer Industrial Technologies (AIT) – which owns a machine shop on the Delaware River and had been slated to build the towers for offshore wind turbines – dropped out the project. 

AIT builds parts for nuclear power plants, and its owner said participation in the wind project had become “a political issue.”  There had also been disagreements about financing arrangements.

John Carney, executive vice-president of the project (who will be phasing out soon to run for the U.S. House of Representatives), said “we still believe in the concept” of having the towers built in Delaware.  Earlier, DelaWind had predicted that it could create 560 new jobs in Delaware. 

[This project is dependent on government subsidies plus mandates to generate a rising amount of power from renewable sources.  As for generating jobs, remember the estimate of a Spanish Economist that for every "green" job created, 2.2 jobs are lost elsewhere.  And for those who worry about global warming, nuclear power is a more practical alternative than wind power.

            We believe subsidies and unjustified roadblocks should be removed from all forms of energy, even if this requires elimination of the U.S. Department of Energy.  The result would be dependable, lower cost energy, a decrease in energy imports, and a stronger U.S. Dollar.]

12/21/09, A15, "E-mails aren't evidence of global warming hoax," Michael Mann (Penn State) – This is the third whitewash Climategate column since we started this microblog; the others were by Glenn MacDonald (12/12) and Tim Rutten (12/15).  It might be time to hear from a skeptic.

“I cannot condone some things that colleagues of mine wrote or requested,” Mann begins, and later on cites a remark about “deleting e-mails that might be subject to a Freedom of Information Act request.”

            On the other hand, he says, words and phrases from the “hacked” e-mails have been taken out of context and exaggerated in an attempt “to cloud the debate and confuse the public.”  [Climate alarmists have been known to claim skeptics are “flat earthers” or in the pay of Exxon instead of debating the science.  Also, the e-mails showed alarmists routinely scheming to prevent skeptics from getting their work published in scientific journals.]

             Excuses are offered for certain statements without adequate discussion.  Thus, Mann was a co-author of a 1998 article, which a UK colleague associated with a “trick” [supposedly scientist talk for “clever solution”] regarding temperature measurement.  The “trick” was that longer-term temperature records based on ice cores, corals and tree rings “could be viewed in the context of recent temperature records.” 

[Mann is notorious for a "hockey stick" graph of temperature versus time, which displays global temperature at a low level for centuries, even through the medieval period, and then increasing rapidly in the 20th century in tandem with rising CO2 levels.  An e-mail predating Climategate suggests the finding was premeditated: "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period".  - Jonathan Overpeck, Lead Author, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

However, it was quite warm in the Medieval Warm Period, as shown by the fact that grapes were grown at higher altitudes than they can be grown now, Scandinavians were farming in Greenland, etc.   

Also, the rapid 20^th century temperature increase in the "hockey stick" graph was based on tree ring data, which show recent faster growth due to the fertilizing effect of carbon dioxide.  By ignoring this effect, the faster growth was falsely attributed to temperature.  See "Unstoppable Global Warming" by Singer & Avery, page 66.

            Mann’s column refers to 1998 as "the warmest year ever recorded" and says the current decade will “go down as the warmest on record”.  [Since global temperatures are believed to have been warmer in both Medieval and Roman times, these claims presumably rest on the fact that temperatures were not being recorded back then.  Also, the most accurate temperature measurements taken from orbiting satellites indicate that temperature might be decreasing and definitely has not been increasing for several years.  We must not let climate alarmists get away with "hockey stick" claims that have no basis in fact.]

12/20/09, A19,  "Efforts to curb warming underscore enormity of task" (AP) – The writer, Seth Borenstein, makes an outrageous statement:  "Emissions of greenhouse gases keep rising and so do global temperatures." [The average global temperature has not increased for several years; some say it is decreasing.  This prompted an alarmed alarmist to lament, in one of the Climategate e-mails: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.”]

12/19/09, A1, "Summit falls far short of goals" –The U.S. president helped broker a deal with China, India et al. that "provides for monitoring emission cuts, but sets no overall global target for cutting greenhouse gases and no deadline for reaching a formal international treaty." 

[No deadline - we love it.  The farther into the future, the greater the odds that skeptics will prevail and end this whole bizarre episode before the government does something really stupid.

            The Earth's temperature has not increased for several years, and has been between ice ages longer than usual, so another ice age could commence any time.  But, don't worry, it would take thousands of years for glaciers to cover the northern United States, etc. and humans might be able to find ways to control the climate. In the meantime, it would be well to concentrate on shorter-term problems such as cutting wasteful government spending to avert the fiscal meltdown that is bearing down on this country.]

12/18/09, A1 (cont’d on A6), "Green isn't your thing? Blame it on your psyche" (AP)

analyzes why most Americans don't consider climate change a very serious problem, and wouldn't support Cap & Trade if it raised their energy bill by $10 per month.  The gist is that the threat seems remote, but people should heed the “experts” who warn of manmade global warming.  Otherwise, Arctic sea ice in summer may largely disappear by 2030, “the average number of heat-wave deaths in Chicago could more than double by 2050,” etc.

Regrettably, “some skeptics . . . question whether greenhouse gas emissions are really an urgent problem that needs to be fixed . . . and their opinions on the Internet have influenced others."  [What about the over 31,000 scientists who do not believe that greenhouse gases are the source of climate change?  Their opinions are as well grounded as those of the “experts” who warn of killer heat waves and such, if not more so.]

12/18/09, A7,  *8 Questions about the Copenhagen climate talks" (Washington Post) is a space filler that must have been written for people who have not been paying attention thus far.  What the heck is all this?  What progress has been made so far? Where do the delegates still disagree?  * * * How is this all going to end? [Hallelujah, the delegates may “pull off a deal on the conference’s last day.”] 

There was one good question: “Wait, didn’t ‘Climate-gate”\’ show that climate change isn’t happening after all?” But “no,” because all the “stolen” e-mails showed was “climate scientists fretting over problems in their data, and scheming to keep researchers who disagreed with them out of scientific journals."  Thus, “the leading experts on the subject tried to make their field appear less messy, and the science of climate change more unanimous, than it really was.” [“More unanimous" means more than 100%.  And “leading experts”? We could call them "leading propaganda experts.")

12/18/09, A20,  "NASA, Google work to track emissions" (AP) – In February, NASA launched a $280 million "Orbiting Carbon Observatory," which failed and crashed into the ocean.  Now they want a $330 million "carbon copy,” which is seen as providing “the ability to monitor both the carbon dioxide pollution and the levels of forest destruction that contribute to global warming.”

[It might be a good idea to figure out why the previous satellite failed and perhaps improve on the design. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, or climate driver either, and you, dear reader, are now "spewing" CO2 at a great rate, assuming you are breathing.  And it is imperative to start spending the taxpayer’s money more carefully. See David Broder’s column on A23, "With this debt level, the U.S. can't survive another severe recession."]

12/17/09, A11, "Obama won't take new offer to Copenhagen" (AP) predicts the president will not “cave in to pressure and deepen U.S. efforts to curb greenhouse gases” because he is “constrained by tough politics at home.”    U.S. officials said he would stick to the previously announced goal of 17% reduction of greenhouse gases in 2020 from the 2005 level, although developing countries are reportedly seeking a 34% reduction.  The planned commitment is said to mirror “legislation already before Congress, calling for 17 percent reduction in pollution by 2020 and 80 percent by mid-century.”

            A recent AP-Stanford University poll indicates three-quarters of respondents “support action to address climate change.” [We need to keep educating people that claims of human-caused global warming have been wildly exaggerated.  Nature, not human activity, rules the climate.]  However, “opinion polls have shown people have limits on how much they want to pay to solve the problem,” e.g., “a majority – 59 percent – wouldn’t support any action if it meant electricity [on their monthly bills] would cost $10 more.” [The proposed energy bill would increase energy costs MUCH MORE than that.]

12/17/09,A12, "Biden campaigns for more tax credits for alternative energy projects" (Bloomberg News) – Reportedly, “the credits are a key part of the economics that make two Delaware alternative energy projects [offshore NRG-Bluewater wind farm and a solar energy complex near Dover] possible.”  More tax credits are being proposed because “the stimulus enacted last February has been oversubscribed.”

[This is all about waste, since uneconomic energy projects will not affect global warming, warming would have good effects as well as bad, and it hasn't been warming anyway for the last several years.]

Per Jared Bernstein, Vice-President Biden’s economic adviser, the tax credit program could create “tens of thousands” of jobs.  [Remember, each job created for uneconomic energy projects, causes the loss of 2.2 other jobs according to a study by a Spanish economist.]

12/16/09 – It was a slow day in Copenhagen, apparently, with only one article in today’s edition.  Accordingly, we will also cover two energy articles from yesterday.

A3, “Verifying Chinese cuts a sticking point (AP) reports continued jockeying between the delegates as they await the arrival of world leaders later in the week.  The crucial point is said to be “whether Beijing will allow the world to check its books and verity promised cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.”

 12/15/09 - Wow! Too much.  Two Copenhagen articles, an outrageous Op-Ed whitewashing Climategate, and a couple of energy articles.  We'll postpone energy.

• A1 (cont’d on A5), U.S. torn between climate and economy (USA Today). An USA Today/Gallup poll yielded puzzling results. On one hand, a majority (55% to 38%) is said to endorse an agreement to limit CO2 emissions.  On the other, more people (46% to 38%) worry about an overreaction that could cripple the U.S. economy than a failure to do enough.  Moreover, respondents see the economy as having higher priority than global warming by a 7 to 1 margin.  [A Spanish economist estimates that every "green" job created causes a loss of 2.2 other jobs.]

• A5, Developing countries stall climate talks for hours (AP) reports on a walkout that was started by African countries and joined by China and India.  The apparent intent was to focus attention on the alleged obligations of developed countries vs. binding requirements for developing countries [which account for most of the projected growth in CO2 emissions], continuing the precedent set by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol [which was rejected by the United States]. 

 * A13, "Climategate” debate leaves science by the wayside, Tim Rutten (LATimes), correctly observes "that we've finally managed to politicize even the climate,” but the column goes downhill from there. 

Here's a key statement:  "Doubters insist that the Earth is not warming.  This is in stark contrast to the consensus of 18 of the world's most respected scientific organizations, who strongly stated in an Oct. 21 letter to the U.S. Senate that human-induced climate change is real." [“Human-induced” is a veiled reference to the key question, otherwise not discussed, namely whether the generally warming trend since 1800 or so is manmade.]

"Who benefits?" from complaining about Climategate, asks Rutten, and asserts that "most of the GOP lawmakers trying to discredit the science on global warming come from states enriched by petroleum production and industries with sizeable carbon footprints." As for thousands of scientists conspiring to dupe the world on climate change, “what would they stand to gain?”  [Access, prestige, and continuing government funding for their research studies?  As Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama puts it, "we [climate-related scientists] have a vested interest in creating panic because then money will flow to climate science."  Also, some major firms (GE, Goldman Sachs, etc.) would benefit from “cap and trade” and have jumped aboard the global warming bandwagon.  Even some oil companies are hedging their bets.]

            Rutten draws a clever analogy to tobacco companies that "got a sympathetic hearing from lawmakers elected from tobacco-growing states." [Lawmakers from states enriched by petroleum production - get it?]  "Big Tobacco produced one eccentric scientific skeptic after another,” he says, implying that climate skeptics are few and eccentric. [Over 31,000 scientists are on record as opposing the Kyoto Protocol.]

NOTE: The News Journal published a fine column by Charles Krauthammer yesterday, and they received another Op-Ed column from a skeptic in early December.  Hopefully, the relatively balanced coverage of this issue will continue.

12/14/09, A12, The new socialism takes hold, Charles Krauthammer Op-Ed Column  is spot on about socialism morphing into environmentalism.  In the UN, 3rd world countries that outnumber the rich countries, demand transfer of money to help the 3rd world countries cut CO2 emissions: "With socialism dead, the gigantic heist is now proposed as a sacred service of the newest religion, environmentalism." [Wish he were right about the death of socialism.]

             Krauthammer goes after CO2 regulation by the EPA, saying Congress should trump it by amending the Clean Air Act so as to exclude CO2 from EPA control in the interest of “constitutional decency.” [The EPA is not going to back down, but the White House may have to if enough people start noticing what is going on.]

12/14/09, A10, We’re not so good at long-term, global problems (Washington Post) goes on for a half page on why people don't make an effort to conserve energy, calling climate change "a global problem."  It concludes [this is news versus opinion?] that the best way is to refer to what your neighbor is doing versus, say, characterizing energy conservation as socially responsible.

[People will conserve energy if prices rise. We did it about 15 years ago when there was a natural gas shortage, lowering the thermostat and wearing heavier clothes.  Others did the same and, as a result, natural gas use decreased considerably.]

12/13/09, A3, Protestors descend on summit (AP) – Tens of thousands marched in Copenhagen yesterday for “an ambitious global climate pact.”  A picture shows protestors carrying signs such as "climate justice, now" and “_____ politics, not the climate.”  The police moved in when some protestors began throwing cobblestones through windows.  [Evidently, there are plenty of "true believers" willing to spend on a trip to Copenhagen.]

Meanwhile, at the conference, there was disagreement over a “rich nations” call for “developing nations to limit emissions, with or without financial help.”  Delegates from China and India [the biggest sources of projected increases in CO2 emissions] did not appear to be on board with this idea.  

12/13/09, F6, "China casts big shadow over U.S. in solar race" [USA Today] – China leads the world in making solar cells, many of which are exported to the U.S. [There go those “green jobs” U.S. politicians have been talking about.]  In addition, China reportedly plans to invest in solar power domestically as it "attempts to battle its greenhouse gas emissions, electrify its nation of 1.3 billion people and curb its massive pollution problem."  The government is aiming for renewable energy “to account for 15 percent of its fuel by 2020.”

             [Whether or not the Chinese are concerned about global warming, they will play along with emission reduction measures to the extent compatible with their economic interests.  Thus, coal power plants will continue to be built.]

NOTE: We don't have to convince everybody, but we need to keep at it until the growing number of skeptics is a majority.  In Delaware, our main tool is letters to the editor.  In addition, excellent DVD movies are on hand and ready to be used.

12/12/09, A2, “At climate talks, the tough part just started” (AP)

The article refers to a draft proposal that would provide, among other things, that "all countries together should reduce emissions by a range of 50% to 95% by 2050, and rich countries should cut emissions by 25% to 40% by 2020, in both cases using 1990 as the baseline year."

[This is not to be taken seriously.  If these people were serious, they would be pushing hard for installation of nuclear power.  They might also demand evaluation of Edward Teller's suggestion for reflecting heat away from the Earth by injection of appropriate particles into the stratosphere  - Wall Street Journal, 10/17/97.]

12/12/09, A 11, Misreading depth of Climategate [OpEd column]

Climate change scientist Glen MacDonald writes that "we must redouble efforts to hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards." [If said efforts were formerly in place, they weren't very successful.]  He goes on to dismiss the Climategate e-mails as “drops in a flood of evidence” that should be basically ignored.           

             Remember the Mann "Hockey Stick" temperature versus time record, showing an unprecedented rise in global temperatures in recent times, which has been thoroughly discredited.  Now read: "So, what if we faced a worst-case scenario and the climate records from Jones and Mann were spurious?  Do we have reason to discount the whole corpus of evidence that the 20th and 21st centuries have experienced an unusual spike in temperatures?  The answer is a simple and clear no." [Actually, the answer is a simple and clear yes.  Medieval temperatures were higher than the present temperatures, which haven't increased for several years.]

NOTE: The News Journal editorial pages are open to skeptics.  Almost all of our letters to the editor are published, and an excellent George Will column was published recently.  You can look forward to an article submitted recently, "Don't worry about the climate."

12/11/09, A17, "Stolen e-mails give global warming skeptics momentum"

includes a picture of skeptic David Legates, the Delaware State Climatologist.  Legates could not be reached Thursday for the article by A.P. reporter H. Josef Hebert, who cites a 2007 directive to Legates [inaccurately summarized in our opinion] “not to comment on warming when using his state climatologist title.”

            This article is a must-read for skeptics.  It could be the prelude to a long-delayed debate on climate change.  Unfortunately, the debate pits Democrats against Republicans.

Sarah Palin "said Obama should boycott the negotiations in Denmark and 'not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices'".  Al Gore "quickly rebutted Palin and accused the climate deniers in an interview with CNN of 'taking out of context and misrepresenting what the e-mails actually said'".

            Leading climate skeptics Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) and Rep. James Sensenbrunner (R- WI) are among a group of Republican lawmakers “heading for Copenhagen.”

            Science is not based on the numbers on either side of an argument, but numbers are used. Thus, as reported in the article, “more than 1700 British Scientists released a statement on Thursday saying they continue to have 'the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities'". 

[The numbers game was played in 1998 when human-caused global warming proponents repeatedly referred to more than 2,000 scientists agreeing that there was a discernible effect of human activities on world climate.  In response, a statement was signed by over 19,000 mostly PhD scientists [by now over 30,000] which reads in part "We urge the United States Government to reject the global warming agreement - there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide - will cause - disruption of the Earth's climate". 

            We skeptics need to be prepared to make our case clearly and convincingly.  There is a wealth of information available, including a paper, "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" which can be downloaded free in PDF or html formats at www.heartland.org]

12/10/09, A10, Tuvalu says without an aggressive climate pact, it’s sunk (AP)

Tuvalu, consisting of mid-Pacific low-lying islands, and others requested even more drastic limitation of CO2 emissions.  Saudi Arabia, China and India were opposed. Per the article, the IPCC predicts a sea level rise of one foot per century (two feet in its worst case scenario), a change that could seemingly be coped with over a period of three generations.

             [Tuvalu’s situation was discussed in Singer & Avery's book, "Unstoppable global warming".  Authors said Tuvaluans may be looking for cash "reparations" for global warming.]

12/10/09, A14, letter to the editor (John Kleinstuber)

            In light of evidence that climate data have been “massaged,” the writer proposes further study of the “fictionalized reports” by a federal investigator. 

12/9/09, A6, Rich, poor nations argue over climate economics: Weather officials report evidence this may be the hottest decade ever recorded (AP)

Data were presented at Copenhagen by the World Meteorological Organization (aka the U.N.’s weather agency), according to the article, “showing this decade is on track to be the hottest since records began in 1850, with 2009 [despite ‘cooler than average conditions in the U.S. and Canada’] the fifth warmest year ever.”  WMO Secretary-General Michel Michel Jarraud characterized the data as evidence that “this is indeed globally the warmest period for more than 2,000 years.”

 [Highly accurate measurements from orbiting satellites show that global warming has stalled in recent years, and the “more than 2,000 years” claim is based on an analysis that has been thoroughly discredited.  See, e.g., the following references:

• What happened to global warming?  BBC News, 10/8/09.  Reports that 1998 (not 2007 or 2008) is the warmest year recorded globally and “for the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.”  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

•A Global Warming Primer, National Center for Policy Analysis, 2008, see chart on p. 14 that shows global temperature trend over the past 3,000 years.

http://www.s-a-f-e.org/references.htm [scroll down to Energy, click GW Primer link]

12/8/09, Al- A2, EPA signals action on climate: Business groups warn that regulations would “choke off growth,” drive up prices

            This story refers to the Environmental Protection Agency’s adoption of a previously proposed finding that CO2, etc. are pollutants within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.  “It signaled the administration was prepared to push ahead for significant controls in the U.S. if Congress doesn’t act first,” and will supposedly help the president “convince delegates at [Copenhagen] that the U.S. is serious about addressing the problem” when he speaks to the conference next week.

            Business groups are said to believe that EPA regulation would be “less flexible and more costly than the cap-and-trade legislation being considered by Congress.” [Given how bad the cap-and-trade bills would be, this does not speak well of the regulatory approach.]

            EPA Director Lisa Jackson is said to have "rejected claims by climate skeptics that the source of global warming remains in doubt." She is quoted as saying "the vast body of evidence not only remains unassailable, it has grown even stronger."  [Balderdash! See SAFE’s 6/4/09 letter to Director Jackson, and the sources cited therein. http://www.s-a-f-e.org/contacting_legislators_2.htm#June_4,_2009 And bear in mind that this was written before the Climategate e-mails surfaced.  It is time for us skeptics to defend CO2 quickly, publicly, simply, clearly, convincingly.]

12/7/09, A1 (cont’d on A6), Climate treaty in reach, U.N. says [AP]

General thrust: hopes are rising for a CO2 deal at Copenhagen, and about time too.  However, China and India are not prepared to accept legally binding targets.  Also, Congress has not approved emissions cut (17% from 2005 level) the U.S. president is expected to offer.

12/7/09, B1, The daily "Unscientific Poll"

"Will anything significant come out of the climate meetings?) 178 votes: yes 6%, no 94%. [We hope the general public is right about this.]

12/6/09, A1 (cont’d on A19), Climate summit focuses on practical, not miracle (AP)

The thrust of the story is that there are political problems holding back a binding international agreement to fight manmade global warming – along with major funds transfers to developing nations – but the situation will not wait.  Anyone who says there is no problem is “in denial.” 

Among those quoted is the Global Carbon Project, an international research group, which says "not in 2 million years has so much CO2 built up in the atmosphere."  [150 million years ago, CO2 was five times the present level and dinosaurs enjoyed lush vegetation.  Also, the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is only about 390 parts per million, i.e., not very much.]

12/6/09, A18, Digital cache puts heat on leaders of climate-change science (AP)

This story indicates skeptics are using recently surfaced e-mails to attack “flaws” in the manmade global warming theory, but suggests that the basic conclusions remain sound and everyone who counts knows it.  Thus, 26 climate researchers issued a “Copenhagen Diagnosis” that says global warming has not “recently slowed down or paused.”  [On the contrary, global temperatures have not risen for several years, and may be trending down at this point.]

12/6/09, page A23, “E-mails reveal climate fudgery,” George Will. 

12/5/09, page A10, letter to the editor (Barry Dorsch)

            In his letter to the editor, Dorsch points out how surface temperature measurements used by climate alarmists show a false increase due to the "Urban Heat Island Effect."

            There are additional problems with surface temperature measurements, e.g., location of the monitoring station near air conditioning vents and changes in the exterior paint on the station.  “Is the surface temperature record reliable? Anthony Watts (28 pages, can be downloaded free at http://www.heartland.org/books/SurfaceStations.html)

12/4/09, front page: "Adapt or die key theme at climate talks"

This story says rising seas/ higher temperatures will be “a big topic” at the Copenhagen summit, as will the projected costs of adaptation and/or carbon emission measures.  The picture is painted as grimly factual, with no indication of contrary views (however, a “climate data research to be investigated” story does appear on page A7).

One of the persons quoted is NOAA Chief Jane Lubchenco, a marine biologist.

 "Adaptation will be particularly challenging,” she says, “because the rate of change is escalating and is moving outside the range to which society has adapted in the past."

 [On the contrary, there has been no discernible increase in the Earth's average temperature for several years.  This is based on the most accurate measurements from orbiting satellites.]

12/3/09, page A9, "Climate-change controversy heats up in House"

Congressman James Sensenbrunner (R-WI) attacked the work of Penn State's Michael Mann, which showed the last 50 years to be the hottest in centuries, citing recently surfaced e-mails that he said “show a pattern of suppression, manipulation and secrecy.”  [Amen!]

Presidential Science Adviser John Holdren defended Mann's work, citing a National Academy of Sciences study that he said “had quibbles with Mann's methods but agreed with his results." [Actually, Mann's work has been thoroughly discredited.  The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than any time since.  Furthermore, there has been no warming for the past several years.]

top     close