Political Climate
Mar 11, 2013
TWTW Newsletter

Quote of the Week: “...scientists are neither saints nor devils but human beings sharing the common weaknesses of our species.” Freeman Dyson The Scientist as Rebel, p. 15] [H/t Donna Laframboise]

Number of the Week: $40 Billion US

THIS WEEK:

By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Changing Sun: In its Fourth Assessment Report, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC - AR4) dismissed the sun as a major influence on the earth’s climate change. AR4 stated that changes in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI - sunshine) are not sufficient to explain the changing climate. The IPCC ignored other forms of energy from the sun, such as solar wind and magnetism.

This week, several articles appeared discussing a just published paper by Willie Soon and David Legates: Solar irradiance modulation of Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) temperature gradients: Empirical evidence for climate variation on multi-decadal timescales. The paper asserts that changes in TSI influence changes in the temperature difference between the Equator and the North Pole.

An article in Quadrant, explains that the best way to reveal the influence of the sun on temperatures is to use daytime-highs rather than day-night averages. This goes to one of criticism of the models by five-time IPCC Expert Reviewer Vincent Gray (of NZ) that the sun does not shine at every location 24 hours a day as depicted in the models.

Please see links under: Science: Is the Sun Rising? 

US Assessment Report: In January, the US National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee (NCADAC) published an alarmist draft report on global warming / climate change consequences for the US. Roger Pielke Jr. promptly slammed the report for some of its factual errors, noting that with so much money spent, and so many authors involved, how could the draft report be so wrong?

On his web site, Bob Tisdale presents a more detailed critique. In closing, he suggests the Committee abandon alarmism because, with the internet, false claims are long remembered and evidence can be found to refute them. It remains to be seen if the bureaucratic who wrote the report will understand.

These government efforts are being supervised by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which has as a motto “Thirteen Agencies, One Vision: Empower the Nation with Global Change Science.” The factually challenged reports reflect on all the agencies involved. Please see links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/.

IPCC Run-Up: Just in time to be included in the up-coming IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), researchers from Oregon State University published a report in Science magazine that estimates that temperatures of the last decade were hotter than 75% of the time since the end of the last ice age (start of the Holocene about 11,500 years ago). According to an article in the Oregonian: “The rate of change in the last 100 years is very much unprecedented compared to anything we’ve seen in the last 10,000 years,” said Marcott, the study’s lead author.” “If climate models used by the IPCC, temperatures in 2100 would exceed previous Holocene temperatures in ‘all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios,’ the study says.” The study is based on 73 sets of climate records, mostly from ocean sediment cores.

Immediately, several red flags come up. One, there has been no warming for at least a decade, and the climate models are failing. One cannot make any scientifically supported projections to 2100 based on the models. Two, researcher Marcott claimed that prior research had not extended global temperatures from proxies beyond the last 2,000 years. Ice cores go far beyond that and the new study is inconsistent with Greenland ice cores, which are supported by significant other proxy data. Three, the sampled time interval is between 20 to 500 years, making it difficult to make any comparisons with the rate of warming in the 20th century.
Four, a simple review of the studies listed in CO2 Science, the web site of Sherman, Craig, and Keith Idso, produces a multitude of studies that contradict the claim that the current warm period is unusual, even in the last 1,000 years. Under Medieval Warm Period, there are studies for every continent. Under Medieval Warm Period, Global, there a multitude of studies listed including one that had 6,144 sets of heat flow measurements from all the continents.

This episode is one more illustration of once distinguished scientific journals hyping an upcoming article by sending out early press releases to selected journalists who will write a sensationalized report on the article before anyone in the scientific community has a chance to read and think about it. Please see Article # 1, links under Defending the Orthodoxy and http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/subject_m.php

Madison Avenue Science: Since the 1920s until recently, Madison Avenue in New York has been identified with the American advertising industry. Here many highly successful ad campaigns for consumer products such as toothpaste, aspirin, toilet paper, and, yes, cigarettes were concocted and implemented. In his book Propaganda, pioneer Edward Bernays made it clear he believed in what he was doing, and it was for the good of consumers and the country. He believed it was important for a self-selected elite to influence the general masses as to what to buy, to think, and to vote. Today, the term propaganda is no longer fashionable and has been replaced by “scientific marketing.”

Joe D’Aleo has pointed out that sociologist Edward Maibach established a scientific marketing center for the Climate Establishment. Indeed, a review of the web site of The Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University confirms D’Aleo’s view. All the trappings of Madison Avenue are there. “We use social science research methods - experiments, surveys, in-depth interviews and other methods - to find ways of effectively engaging the public and policy makers in the problem, and in considering and enacting solutions. “Our mission is to conduct unbiased public engagement research - and to help government agencies, non-profit organizations, and companies apply the results of this research so that collectively, we can stabilize our planet’s life sustaining climate.” [Note the scientifically false assumption that humans can stabilize the earth’s climate, which has never been stable.]

One of its programs was titled: “The Climate Change In The American Mind Series Fall 2012,” which includes a series of reports concluding with: “The final report from Fall 2012 shows that the Alarmed have grown from 10 percent of the American adult population in 2010 to 16 percent in 2012. At the same time, the Dismissive have decreased in size, from 16 percent in 2010 to 8 percent in 2012.”

The site includes a special section for TV weather forecasters and their role as “Climate Educators.” Another section is titled: “Public Perceptions Of NASA And Other Federal Agencies’ Climate Research.” NASA, the National Science Foundation, the National Park Service and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are listed among the major funding organizations.

No doubt, as with Bernays, the organizers of this site believe it is a noble cause. Critics may refer to it as “brain washing” using public tax money. Please see link: http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/welcome .

Extreme Weather: Maplecroft, an independent risk analysis firm, which sells its findings to businesses, humanitarian organizations, etc, came out with its report of the natural hazards experienced in 2012. Overall the year was the least deadly year in the past 10, with fatalities at about 10,000 or about 9% of the average for the past ten years of 106,000. Its findings were similar to those of the re-insurance company Munich Re. The major exception was the US, with Sandy and the drought. Please note there were no major mass deaths from earthquakes in 2012, which are unrelated to weather.

The organization’s Socio-economic Resilience Index 2013 ranks countries into four risk categories. The countries under extreme risk are mostly poor countries in Africa. Combining the resilience index with the natural hazard risk illustrates the importance of resilience in overcoming risks of natural disasters.

For example, with its many natural weather hazards, the US is in the top 20 countries most at risk countries for exposure to hurricanes, tsunamis, extra-tropical cyclones, storm surges, flooding, volcanic risk and wildfires. But it ranks at 169th (out of 197 countries) and “low risk” in the Natural Hazard Risk Atlas because it has the resilience to respond. This shows the importance of disaster preparedness. Please see link under Extreme Weather.

See much more here.

-----------

Also see this powerpoint by John Droz on Science under Assault



Mar 08, 2013
McKibben’s 350.org exposed - Rockefellers behind ‘scruffy little outfit’

POLITICALLY DRIVEN WELL FUNDED ENVIROFASCISM - MCKIBBBEN CLAIMED ALL WITH ALMOST NO MONEY - BUT TAXES REVEAL MCKIBBEN’S BAND OF GREENIES POCKETED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS

Anti-Keystone protests get millions in funding

Nothing influences President Barack Obama’s decision on the Keystone XL pipeline quite like the protests against it, led by Bill McKibben, an American environmentalist, and his organization, called 350.org. On Wednesday, 350.org and the Sierra Club participated in an anti-Keystone protest at the White House and this Sunday they are holding another one on Capital Hill. They expect 20,000 people from across the United States.

350.org has the look and feel of an amateur, grassroots operation, but in reality, it is a multi-million dollar campaign run by staff earning six-digit salaries.

By my analysis of information from the U.S. Foundation Center and the tax filings of American charitable foundations, McKibben’s campaigns have received more than 100 grants since 2005 for a total of US$10-million from 50 charitable foundations. Six of those grants were for roughly US$1-million each.

In the interest of fairness and transparency, McKibben should fully disclose 350.org’s funding and the Rockefellers and other charitable foundations that have been bankrolling the anti-Keystone campaign should come out from the shadows.

Since 2006, McKibben has led three campaigns: Step it Up, 1Sky and 350.org. Each campaign built on the previous one. In the summer of 2006, Step it Up organized a protest walk across Vermont to push for a moratorium on coal-fired power plants and other federal actions. Created in 2007, 1Sky began a national movement to jump-start a clean energy economy. 350.org built on 1Sky and in April of 2011, the two campaigns officially merged.

More than half of the US$10-million came from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), the Rockefeller Family Fund and the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, where McKibben, a trustee, was paid US$25,000 per year (2001-09). Since 2007, the Rockefellers have paid US$4-million towards 1Sky and 350.org, tax returns say. The Schumann Center provided US$1.5-million to McKibben’s three campaigns as well as US$2.7-million to fund the Environmental Journalism Program at Middlebury College, in Vermont, where McKibben is on staff.

The founders of the Schumann Center were John J. Schumann Jr. and Florence Ford, a former president of General Motors Acceptance Corp. and the daughter of one of the founders of IBM, respectively.

Last spring, I emailed McKibben to ask about his campaign funding. He replied twice, but did not mention the Rockefellers or the Schumann Center, where he had been a trustee for 10 years. Last week, I again asked McKibben about his funding. He said that Step It Up, 1Sky or 350.org reimburse him for travel expenses, but do not pay him a fee for his services. To its credit, 350.org now provides an online list of the 30 foundations that funded the campaign in 2011. Until this week, the Schumann Center was not on the list and yet tax returns show that in 2011, Schumann paid US$311,300 to 350.org and 1Sky. 350.org admitted this week that the Schumann Center had been omitted from the list. It has since been added.

What 350.org’s list of donors fails to convey is that some foundations provide only US$5,000 or US$10,000, while two unidentified donors provide half of 350.org’s budget for 2011, according to its financial statements. Four grants accounted for two-thirds of 350’org’s budget. 350.org declined to identify the donors of those grants.

Back in 2007, the 1Sky Education Fund had starting revenues of US$1.6-million. Of that, US$1.3-million was from the Rockefeller Family Fund. In 2008, 1Sky received a further US$920,000 from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund as well as US$900,000 from the Schumann Center, tax returns show. What this means is that from the get-go, McKibben’s campaign was bankrolled by the Rockefellers and the Schuman Center.

Bill McKibben has been a director of 1Sky since it began, so one would think that he was aware of the organization’s finances. And yet,

to hear McKibben tell the story, he started the climate movement and the protests against Keystone XL with nothing more than a few students and “almost no money.”

In a 2010 article by McKibben, posted on at least 10 websites, he writes, “Last year, with almost no money, our scruffy little outfit, 350.org, managed to organize what Foreign Policy called the ‘largest ever co-ordinated global rally of any kind” on any issue.’ In another article that McKibben penned for Tikkun magazine, he says that he built the climate movement with seven graduate students at Middlebury College and “no money or organization.” During the fall of 2012, in interviews with Jed Lipinski and Grand Valley University, McKibben again told the story of starting 350.org with seven students and “almost no money.” But that’s not what tax returns indicate.

1Sky began in 2008. In its first year, 1Sky reported expenditures of US$2.6-million, tax returns show. Of that, US$2.2-million was payroll, including US$1.2-million for consultants. In 2009, 1Sky’s campaign director, Gillian Caldwell, a lawyer by training, was paid US$203,620 through the Rockefeller Family Fund. A salary of more than US$200,000 is hardly typical of a “scruffy little outfit.”

During 2011, the most recent year for which tax returns are publicly available, 350.org again had a US$2-million payroll, including US$622,000 for consultants. 350.org spent US$1.2-million on grassroots fieldwork, partnership with other organizations and media coverage, and US$356,000 to recruit participants through emails, blogs and social networking.

The next time McKibben pens an article or gives a speech, he should acknowledge the US$10-million that his campaigns have received from the Rockefellers, the Schumann Center and other sources.

Financial Post



Feb 27, 2013
Dominion Virginia’s “Green” Solar Program: Bad Economics for a Misplaced Cause

"[T]here is no companion prerequisite that such renewable programs be cost-effective or deliver reliable power...This program appears designed for the privileged few to enjoy a subsidized electric energy existence, provides those ‘green bragging rights’ mentioned by a solar installer in this courtroom last September, but little else.”

Last May, Dominion Virginia Power petitioned the Virginia State Corporation Commission to introduce a voluntary ratepayer program to support up to 3 MW from distributed solar installations. Dominion seeks to offer the public an alternative to an existing, net-metering, residential solar panel program. This voluntary test Solar Panel Program would be guaranteed for five years at a “buy all/sell all” $0.15/kWh. It would be limited to an initial maximum scale of 0.2 percent of 2010 peak load.

Solar is an intermittent power source that would require storage to be on a stand-alone basis. The Dominion program offers a solar energy buyback on a firm (non-interrupted) basis, which requires cross subsidization from conventional energies.

The $0.15/kWh price is below what the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates to be the cost of distributed solar, which is north of $0.25/kWh. Multiple tax breaks explain the difference ($0.022/kWh production tax credit; accelerated depreciation, etc.). Solar executive David Bergeron has estimated that the as much as 90 percent of lifecycle solar costs are hidden, due to special government subsidies.

The program would be funded, in part, by customers participating in Dominion’s voluntary Green Power Program (GPP), which accepts donations from those wishing to promote renewable energy programs. The Dominion representative would not commit to a guarantee that, should the voluntary GPP donations fail to fully fund the solar program, that a general electric rate increase would not be requested in the future.

Background and Hearing

The Virginia legislature has enacted over several years a number of enabling acts which provide incentives to energy producers to promote their use of renewable energy. These included a goal to “to promote solar energy through distributed generation.” Such programs claim benefits of enhanced fuel diversification, environmental benefits associated with zero-emissions generation sources, and job and tax benefits. In this case, the additional claimed benefit is that of a distributed power generation system. Savings in transmission line losses and increased reliability from multiple local sources of power were two claimed benefits.

Public comments were held on February 12, 2013. About a dozen parties spoke to the desirability of the proposed residential solar program, although with some reservations. Most were homeowners with existing solar systems who related the generous income they were already receiving from selling solar credits (Renewable Energy Credits) in the open market, as well from Dominion’s existing net-energy-metering rates.

A solar panel installer spoke of the job-producing ripple effect of new residential customers anxious to take advantage of the financial rewards of residential solar. He stressed the “green bragging rights” attached to solar programs as another selling point.

The primary objection of these solar supporters to the Dominion structured proposal was that the 15 cent/kWh purchase price was too low since Dominion was benefiting from avoiding (higher) peak grid rates. (Supporting Dominion documents indicate that this residential, distributed solar energy supply is anticipated to coincide with peak energy demands during hot summer months.)
This select group, described as “sophisticated investors” by one solar panel installer, was concerned with return-on-investment issues and maximizing their multiple, tax-advantaged solar panel installations. They requested that the 15 cent/kWh buy-rate be increased by Dominion to offset the anticipated Federal and State income tax burden.

Otherwise, the net after-tax-return would be about the same as for the current net energy metering plan, thus there would be no monetary incentive to participate in the solar plan. Rather than five years, some wanted a 20-year (or more) guaranteed contract term so as to make commercial financing of their project more appealing.

This cynical observer concluded that it “pays to be green” only when it pays enough.

There was only one person (yours truly) who spoke against the Dominion proposal on fundamental philosophical and scientific grounds. My testimony against the Dominion Virginia Power program provided real-world evidence that such solar plans are neither cost-effective nor beneficial to the general public.

My testimony against the Dominion Virginia Power program follows:
--------

Members of the State Corporation Commission: PUE-2012-00064
Richmond, VA February 12, 2013

There is no need for another solar test program. Much like the existing track record for commercial solar power, there is abundant existing technical and practical information concerning residential solar power issues.

Germany is an acknowledged promoter and pioneer of solar energy. Guaranteed long-term governmental subsidies at over-market rates were provided to commercial German solar energy providers. This has resulted in over 600,000 households now being unable to pay their electric bills. Residential electricity rates have become so unaffordable during this severe winter that many Germans are illegally taking down forest trees to burn for home heating.

Closer to home, Hawaii experienced a surge in rooftop solar power systems because of promotion of solar energy through an aggressive renewable energy program, and one of the country’s most generous tax credits. One result is that Hawaiian Electric Co. now warns that the electric grid is vulnerable to power fluctuations and blackouts because so much of the grid energy (six per cent) consists of intermittent solar power. Citing unsustainable budget costs, the Hawaii Department of Taxation announced that the solar tax credit would be cut in half, effective Jan 2013.

Phase II of a Bad Program

The bill before the Commission today is the second phase of an economically indefensible solar test program...this one aimed at the residential market. It does provide cover for Dominion Power to fulfill Virginia-sourced renewable energy incentives and to placate environmentalism activists.

The application makes reference to Virginia enabling legislation from 2011. Chapter 6 of the “Virginia Energy Plan 2007” and 2010 both contain a list of incentives intended to promote renewable energy. The 2010 Virginia Energy Plan includes:

An enhanced rate of return for utility investments in renewable electric generating facilities. A renewable portfolio standard calling for 15 percent of 2007 base-line electric production from renewable sources, with utilities eligible to receive an enhanced rate-of-return for meeting the standard.

However there is no companion prerequisite that such renewable programs be cost-effective or deliver reliable power. This loophole provides profit-making incentives without either cost or performance constraints, save the action of the Commission here acting on behalf of the general public.

Climate Alarmism

The origins of renewable energy portfolios and their legislative support were based on a “the science is settled” attitude towards computer modeled global warming. Fossil fuel generated carbon dioxide was de facto targeted as the villain. Other less politically attractive possible factors, known and unknown, were excluded.

This tunnel vision version of science has been used to promote these renewable energy sources to the public, even as they are demonstrably not cost-effective, nor climate changing. Ignored are the millions of pounds of toxic carcinogenic sludge waste inherent in the solar panel manufacturing process.

The Dominion (www.dom.com) website states:

1 MWh of renewable energy, equal to a single REC, purchased through Dominion’s Green Power program prevents more than 18,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions. Also, when you participate in the Dominion Green Power program, you are doing more than just creating environmental benefits. You are helping make renewable energy generation more cost-competitive with other energy sources by providing the renewable energy generator an additional source of revenue.

Indeed, natural gas has become so cheap that it has made nuclear and other fossil fuels less competitive, and renewables non-competitive. Yet, in these tough economic times the consumer is encouraged to make up this growing cost-gap, and make what is admittedly not cost-competitive, artificially competitive. I can only wonder why?

The saving of carbon dioxide emissions is posited as an assumed benefit. In reality this claim is scientifically unsubstantiated in regards to identifiable manmade, global-climate impacts.
With respect to global warming fears, the actual record shows no detectable warming in either the atmosphere or the ocean for over a decade. Climate models remain faulty in their representations of nature, and overstate the warming effect of carbon dioxide by overestimating the climate sensitivity. They are unable to account accurately for the critical influences of cloud formation.

Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Reference Network has belatedly corrected the erroneous initial claim in the “2012 State of the Climate Report” that 2012 was the warmest “La Niña year” on record; it is now re-ranked number nine or ten.

15 cent Power: Too Much

The Dominion Virginia Power distributed solar generation plan under consideration today would lock-in a 15 cent per kWh purchase price for approved residential solar installations for five years.
The 15 cent level is the chosen “appealing” number after bargaining with potential participants. The plan is promoted to “allow the company to further study the impacts and assess the benefits of distributed solar generation to its distribution system.”

There is no need to do so. Germany and Hawaii document that grid instability becomes a demonstrable problem when solar (or wind) becomes more than just a few per cent of the energy make-up. This Dominion proposal specifically excludes any upgrades to the existing electrical grid to deal with the inherently intermittent nature of solar energy.

The proposed maximum scale of 0.2 per cent of 2010 peak load is purposely so small as to avoid grid problems that would occur were it implemented on a larger scale. So what is the public benefit?

If the Dominion-estimated 114 to 475 potential customers participating in this program are able to meet all their energy needs via solar, the examples given by Ms. Corsello suggest that they would be paid to do so at the 15 cent rate, and pay nothing other than a monthly meter fee for the convenience of a Dominion conventional-fueled, back-up power connection.

These same lucky customers are likely to have already exploited all available solar tax and cash rebates, and incentive financing subsidized by other taxpayers. How many low income citizens will be able to participate in this elite project? Will the public eventually see lower electric bills as a beneficial result?

Does Dominion guarantee not to seek future general rate increases should its projections for the avoided cost energy component and Green Power Program contribution prove inadequate?
In summary, this program appears designed for the privileged few to enjoy a subsidized electric energy existence, provides those “green bragging rights” mentioned by a solar installer in this courtroom last September, but little else.

—————-

Charles Battig, a retired physician and post-graduate electrical engineer, is a member of Virginia Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE). See more here



Page 126 of 645 pages « First  <  124 125 126 127 128 >  Last »