Google has announced plans to battle skeptics. In a story ”Google Takes on Climate Change Skeptics with New Technology Effort”, Maria Galucci announced the search giant has brought together a team of 21 climate researchers to improve the way the science of global warming is communicated using new media”. She continues:

Kelly Levin, a senior research associate at the World Resources Institute, a conservation group, said she hoped the Google program could tackle that challenge by engaging wider audiences in the scientific discussion.

“If the scientists understand [data] in a different way than the public does, it is impossible to see how this information is going to be integrated in the way it needs to be to make policy and management decisions,” she said.

What they don’t get is that they have predetermined that climate change is real and is bad without looking at the facts or consulting groups other that conservation or environmental groups or scientists riding the global warming gravy train.

ICECAP offers to debate the Google 21 scientists using the 18 points in our letter to the EPA signed by 35 scientists who are in the skeptic camp. Our choice of format. Their choice of time or place. Perhaps their June conference would be ideal. I am especially distressed to see the AMS involved in the Google effort. The formerly great professional society has become nothing but a public ploicy advocacy group for the liberal agenda.

If there is no movement or change, I will use other search engines and sell my google stock. You should consider the same. They have no business working to push an agenda and affect public policy. I won’t cancel my AMS membership, where I worked hard to achieve a CCM and Fellow designation, but attempt to work from within to oust the leadership and make the society advocates for good science not a political green agenda or public policy.

Galucci is a biased writer (hack). In her story on NH looking at repealing RGGI, she only spoke to democrats opposing the bill and had a release from a group blaming AFP for the repeal bill. I and 3 other scientists provided testimony at the public hearing. There was no evidence of AFP and we paid for our own travel and expenses.

--------

Al Gore’s Google Goes ‘Full Monty’ On Global Warming; The Google Billionaires’ Sanity Questioned

Read here. Who can forget Googlegate, (likely prompted by Google board member, Al Gore) during the Climategate e-mail scandal of pro-AGW scientists? Now, Google the business has decided to take sides on the science debate of global warming and Al Gore is still a Google board member - coincidence?

In an open letter to Google by Willis Eschenbach, Al Gore’s billionaire Google friends are shredded by Willis regarding their partisan hack attempt to sway public opinion. As Willis succinctly points out, this is extreme Googlian stupidity.

“Recently, you have decided to take sides in a scientific debate. That in itself is very foolish. Why would Google want to take either side when there is a disagreement between scientists? I thought your motto was “Do No Evil.” For the 900-pound gorilla to take sides in any tempestuous politically charged scientific discussion is an extremely stupid thing to do.....So what did you guys do? You’re now providing money to 21 supporters of the CO2 hypothesis, funding them as “Google Fellows” to go and flog their scientific claims in the marketplace of ideas. Is this the new face of Google, advocating for a partisan idea?.....Supporting either side in the debate involves Google in a high-stakes, multi-billion dollar, long-festering, dog-ugly political/scientific battle, with passions running high on both sides, accusations thrown, reputations attacked ... and putting your head in this buzz-saw, jumping into this decades-old scientific Balkan war, this is a good idea for Google exactly how?...Truly, are you off your collective meds or something?”

The fact that Google has decided to piss off some 50% of the American populace is a true revelation of how lame the pathetic UN/IPCC AGW science actually is.

Right on as usual Willis. See C3 headlines post.

This is a very disturbing note. Already the government and these alleged ‘environmentalists’ have far too much control over the education system from teachers to curriculum. You need to stop further intrusions in your local areas by government and environmentalists which have left behind a trail of brainwashed youth and programs with unintended consequences or worse.

Across the country, states are busy setting goals for environmental literacy, including here in Wisconsin, where the state’s first Environmental Literacy Plan is being drafted by a new group, the Wisconsin chapter of the No Child Left Inside Coalition. State Superintendent Tony Evers asked the group, whose members represent key environmental education organizations, for the plan and has called for educators statewide to “renew our commitment to teaching students about environmental responsibility.”

This year, funding was restored for a long-vacant environmental education consultant position within the Department of Public Instruction. Among this staff member’s duties: making sure teachers are properly trained for environmental education, and providing districts with resources and technical assistance to help meet the state’s goals for environmental literacy.

The flurry of activity is partly due to rumors that the Obama administration is leaning toward including environmental education initiatives in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (previously known as the No Child Left Behind Act). The legislation may open up funding for states with strong environmental education programs and goals.

Certainly ‘environmental literacy’ will prepare student better than just plain old literacy when it comes to dealing with an increasingly unstable Earth.

After all, the important thing is to “blur racial and income disparities.” The Center for Ecoliteracy in Berkeley, California says so.

--------

Global warming as ‘cargo cult science’
By James Wanliss, Ph.D.

During World War II, remote Pacific islands like Vanuatu became involved in war efforts when they became part of supply lines. To the natives the arrival of noisy “birds” was almost miraculous, bringing delicious foods and wondrous cargo.

After the war the birds left. Into the uncertain vacuum returned old terrors of hunger and sickness, and an angry Earth. Superstitious natives copied what they had seen. They made model planes and runways. They had the form right - the outward form of religion - but lacked power. As they had seen so they, and their priests, did. But no airplanes landed. Anthropologists call this religion a “cargo cult.”

Likewise cargo cult “science” can arise, noted physicist Richard Feynman, when researchers go through the motions of scientific rituals without actually doing science. Experiment first, conclusions later is the basis of scientific inquiry. Cargo cult science predetermines conclusions and reverses the order. This is a conscious perversion of normal scientific practice. It can be called post-normal science because power over other people, not truth, is the goal. Post-normal science is a deformed bloom in which the search to explain our physical world is less significant than the quest to use scientific authority to achieve political goals.

Global-warming federal-scientific partnerships form the basis for several cargo cults. Many billions of dollars are thrown at studying global warming, and recent Climategate scandals reveal prominent scientists failing (or forbidding) to ask critical questions that might challenge cherished beliefs, or threaten gravy trains. Annual federal funding to study global warming is around $4 billion and rising.

Mike Hulme, a professor of climate change and priest in this cargo cult, explains: “The function of climate change I suggest, is not as a lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved....It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change...to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come.”

So global warming is not essentially about science, but essentially about politics. Then science becomes not about seeking to understand our world, but about activism and influencing public opinion. Much more.

It was only a matter of time before environmentalists would point toward Japan, say, “We told you so,” and then declare a moral victory for anti-nuclear activism.  Merely for the sake of argument, let’s pretend they are right.

Eliminating nuclear power might be a nice experiment.  But there is one big problem:  Environmentalists are trying to eliminate all the other alternatives, as well.

They oppose oil because drilling poses a risk to the environment.  That is primarily why the United States is not tapping its own natural resources, such as in ANWR.  Also, the U.S. has to rely on foreign powers-- often dictators-- to satisfy our “oil addiction.” This threatens our national security and is ethically questionable.  So, scratch oil off the list.

Coal is no good, either.  The reason is because it is environmentally hazardous to extract, in addition to being dangerous to miners.  Besides, burning it produces too much carbon dioxide and contributes to global warming.  “Clean coal” is a fiction, according to environmentalists, so it is not worth researching.

Natural gas?  Nope.  Although it is much cleaner than coal, it is not carbon neutral.  Thus, natural gas should be avoided, too.

Hydroelectric power used to enjoy broad support, but that appears to no longer be the case.  Some now express concern because the process of constructing the plant itself (such as creating a reservoir) releases greenhouse gases.  Environmentalists in Ohio blocked the construction of a hydroelectric plant because it would endanger plants and inconvenience fish.

It is fashionable today to support wind energy, unless you live near Nantucket Sound, where it is socially acceptable to oppose the Cape Wind project on aesthetic grounds.  Others oppose wind turbines because they occasionally kill a few birds.

Ideally, the world would run entirely on solar power.  It is both clean and safe, and the sun provides the planet with enough energy in a single hour to power the world for an entire year.  And the best thing is it’s completely renewable.  (Well, that is, until the sun burns out.)

This is as close to a magical solution as is currently possible.  However, solar cell efficiency (converting sunlight to electricity) remains an enormous technological obstacle.  Currently, solar power only provides about 1% of our national energy, and it is unlikely to greatly increase anytime soon.  But even if we could increase the efficiency of solar power, evidence indicates that environmentalists would oppose that, too.  In California, the construction of a solar power plant has been held up due to concerns raised over the welfare of a lizard.

By now, the following fact should be quite obvious:  All sources of energy pose some sort of risk or cost.  Risk-free, cost-free energy is a complete myth and simply does not, and will not, exist.

Groups that never propose realistic solutions are simply not worth taking seriously.  Unfortunately, this characterizes the arguments put forth by some environmentalists.  They should not be given a seat at the adults’ table until they demonstrate an ability to propose a serious solution to the most serious of problems.

Alex B. Berezow is the editor of RealClearScience.  He holds a Ph.D. in microbiology.

ICECAP NOTE: See also Dr. Larry Bell’s latest excellent post on Forbes entitled “Renewable Energy Delusions: Getting A Real Grip On Alternatives”
.

ICECAP NOTE: As oil flirts with $100 a barrel and gasoline nears $4/gallon, and as the administration sits on its hands, congress reported on a congressional report that showed the U.S combined energy resources were the largest on earth and that with the right energy policy, we could become much more energy independent and less vulnerable to shocks when trouble flairs up in the Middle East. Instead of the green energy focus which has failed miserably in Europe, we need to take advantage of our resources today to propel our economy forward. The energy sector is a major job creator too so that would have huge benefits to our economy and our people.

Washington, D.C. - Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, today released an updated government report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) showing America’s combined recoverable oil, natural gas, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth.  America’s recoverable resources are far larger than those of Saudi Arabia (3rd), China (4th), and Canada (6th) combined.  And that’s not including America’s immense oil shale and methane hydrates deposits.

Senator Murkowski: “It comes as no surprise that we are once again estimated to have the largest conventional energy resource endowment on Earth. As we debate ways to reduce gas prices and provide relief to American families and businesses, this report should be required reading for every member of Congress.  For the sake of our national security, our economy, and the world’s environment, we need to explore and develop more of our own resources.”

Senator Inhofe: “The Obama Administration has made a conscious policy choice to raise energy prices, accomplished in good measure by restricting access to domestic energy supplies.  Those supplies are, according to the Congressional Research Service, the largest on Earth.  We could help bring affordable energy to consumers, create new jobs, and grow the economy if the Obama Administration would simply get out of the way so America can realize its true energy potential.”

Here’s what CRS says about America’s tremendous resource base:

Oil

CRS offers a more accurate reflection of America’s substantial oil resources.  While America is often depicted as possessing just 2 or 3 percent of the world’s oil - a figure which narrowly relies on America’s proven reserves of just 28 billion barrels - CRS has compiled US government estimates which show that America, the world’s third-largest oil producer, is endowed with 163 billion barrels of recoverable oil.  That’s enough oil to maintain America’s current rates of production and replace imports from the Persian Gulf for more than 50 years. 

Natural Gas

Further, CRS notes the 2009 assessment from the Potential Gas Committee, which estimates America’s future supply of natural gas is 2,047 trillion cubic feet (TCF) - an increase of more than 25 percent just since the Committee’s 2006 estimate.  At today’s rate of use, this is enough natural gas to meet American demand for 90 years.

Coal

The report also shows that America is number one in coal resources, accounting for more than 28 percent of the world’s coal.  Russia, China, and India are in a distant 2nd, 3rd, and 5th, respectively. In fact, CRS cites America’s recoverable coal reserves to be 262 billion short tons. For perspective, the US consumes just 1.2 billion short tons of coal per year.  And though portions of this resource may not be accessible or economically recoverable today, these estimates could ultimately prove to be conservative.  As CRS states: “...U.S. coal resource estimates do not include some potentially massive deposits of coal that exist in northwestern Alaska.  These currently inaccessible coal deposits have been estimated to be more than 3,200 billion short tons of coal.”

Oil Shale

While several pilot projects are underway to prove oil shale’s future commercial viability, the Green River Formation located within Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah contains the equivalent of 6 trillion barrels of oil.  The Department of Energy estimates that, of this 6 trillion, approximately 1.38 trillion barrels are potentially recoverable.  That’s equivalent to more than five times the conventional oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. 

Methane Hydrates

Although not yet commercially feasible, methane hydrates, according to the Department of Energy, possess energy content that is “immense ... possibly exceeding the combined energy content of all other known fossil fuels.” While estimates vary significantly, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) recently testified that: “the mean in-place gas hydrate resource for the entire United States is estimated to be 320,000 TCF of gas.” For perspective, if just 3% of this resource can be commercialized in the years ahead, at current rates of consumption, that level of supply would be enough to provide America’s natural gas for more than 400 years.

Enlarged.

Control the language, and you control the outcome of any debate

Ten dishonest slogans about global warming, and ten little facts.

Each of the following ten numbered statements reproduces verbatim, or almost verbatim, statements made recently by Australian government leaders, and repeated by their media and other supporters. The persons making these arguments might be termed (kindly) climate-concerned citizens or (less kindly, but accurately) as global warming alarmists.

Despairing of ever hearing sense from such people, some of whom have already attributed the cause of the devastating Japanese earthquake to global warming, a writer from the well regarded American Thinker has badged them as “idiot global warming fanatics”.

Be that as it may, most of the statements below, self-evidently, were crafted as slogans, and all conform with the obnoxious and dishonest practice of political spin - in which, of course, the citizens of Australia have been awash for many years. The statements also depend heavily upon corrupt wordsmithing with propaganda intent, a technique that international Green lobbyists are both brilliant at and relentless in practising.

The ten statements below comprise the main arguments that are made in public in justification for the government’s intended new tax on carbon dioxide. Individually and severally these arguments are without merit. That they are intellectually pathetic too is apparent from my brief commentary on each.

It is a blight on Australian society that an incumbent government, and the great majority of media reporters and commentators, continue to propagate these scientific and social inanities.

1. We must address carbon (sic) pollution (sic) by introducing a carbon (sic) tax.

The argument is not about carbon or a carbon tax, but rather about carbon dioxide emissions and a carbon dioxide tax, to be levied on the fuel and energy sources that power the Australian economy.

Carbon dioxide is a natural and vital trace gas in Earth’s atmosphere, an environmental benefit without which our planetary ecosystems could not survive. Increasing carbon dioxide makes many plants grow faster and better, and helps to green the planet.

To call atmospheric carbon dioxide a pollutant is an abuse of language, logic and science.

2. We need to link much more closely with the climate emergency.

There is no “climate emergency”; the term is a deliberate lie. Global average temperature at the end of the 20th century fell well within the bounds of natural climate variation, and was in no way unusually warm, or cold, in geological terms.

Earth’s temperature is currently cooling slightly.

3. Putting a price on carbon (sic) will punish the big polluters (sic).

A price on carbon dioxide will impose a deliberate financial penalty on all energy users, but especially energy-intensive industries. These imaginary “big polluters” are part of the bedrock of the Australian economy. Any cost impost on them will be passed straight down to consumers.

It is consumers of all products who will ultimately pay, not the industrialists or their shareholders.

4. Putting a price on carbon (sic) is the right thing to do; it’s in our nation’s interest.

The greatest competitive advantage of the Australian economy is cheap energy generated by coal-fired power stations.

To levy an unnecessary tax on this energy source is economic vandalism that will destroy jobs and reduce living standards for all Australians.

5. Putting a price on carbon (sic) will result in lower carbon dioxide emissions.

Economists know well that an increase in price of some essential things causes little reduction in usage. This is true for both energy (power) and petrol, two commodities that will be particularly hit by a tax on carbon dioxide emissions.

Norway has had an effective tax on carbon dioxide since the early 1990s, and the result has been a 15% INCREASE in emissions.

At any reasonable level ($20-50/t), a carbon dioxide tax will result in no reduction in emissions.

6. We must catch up with the rest of the world, who are already taxing carbon dioxide emissions.

They are not. All hope of a global agreement on emissions reduction has collapsed with the failure of the Copenhagen and Cancun climate meetings. The world’s largest emitters (USA and China) have made it crystal clear that they will not introduce carbon dioxide tax or emissions trading.

The Chicago Climate Exchange has collapsed, chaos and deep corruption currently manifests the European exchange and some US states are withdrawing from anti-carbon dioxide schemes.

Playing “follow the leader” is not a good idea when the main leader (the EU) has a sclerotic economy characterised by lack of employment and the flight of manufacturers overseas.

7. Australia should show leadership, by setting an example that other countries will follow.

Self-delusion doesn’t come any stronger than this.

For Australia to introduce a carbon dioxide tax ahead of the large emitting nations is to render our whole economy to competitive and economic disadvantage for no gain whatsoever.

8. We must act, and the earlier we act on climate change the less painful it will be.

The issue at hand is global warming, not the catch-all, deliberately ambiguous term climate change.

Trying to prevent hypothetical “dangerous” warming by taxing carbon dioxide emissions will be ineffectual, and is all pain for no gain.

9. The cost of action on carbon (sic) pollution (sic) is less than the cost of inaction.

This statement is fraudulent. Implementing a carbon dioxide tax will carry large costs for workers and consumers, but bring no measurable cooling (or other change) for future climate.

For Australia, the total cost for a family of four of implanting a carbon dioxide tax will exceed $2,500/yr* - whereas even eliminating all of Australia’s emissions might prevent planetary warming of 0.01 deg. C by 2100.

10. There is no do-nothing option in tackling climate change.

Indeed.

However, it is also the case that there is no demonstrated problem of “dangerous” global warming. Instead, Australia continues to face many self-evident problems of natural climate change and hazardous natural climate events. A national climate policy is clearly needed to address these issues.

The appropriate, cost-effective policy to deal with Victorian bushfires, Queensland floods, droughts, northern Australian cyclones and long-term cooling or warming trends is the same.

It is to prepare carefully for, and efficaciously deal with and adapt to, all such events and trends whether natural or human-caused, as and when they happen. Spending billions of dollars on expensive and ineffectual carbon dioxide taxes serves only to reduce wealth and our capacity to address these only too real world problems.

Preparation for, and adaptation to, all climate hazard is the key to formulation of a sound national climate policy.

Professor Bob Carter is a geologist, environmental scientist and Emeritus Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.