jump to navigation

Climate change madness from the WHO: Hospitals urged to reduce their carbon footprints! May 23, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , ,

Climate change madness from the WHO: Hospitals urged to reduce their carbon footprints!

By the blogowner honestclimate, May 23, 2009

Ambulance of the future?

Ambulance of the future?

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse…

Reuters, May 22, 2009

WHO urges hospitals to join climate change battle

Hospitals And Their Emergency Vehicles, Which Are Major Polluters, Must Join The Fight Against Climate Change, The World Health Organization Said On Friday.

“The health sector can contribute a lot to reduce the carbon footprint because the health sector in many countries is the second most important user and energy consumption is very high,” Maria Neira, director of the WHO’s department of public health and environment, told a news briefing.


Hospitals should use alternative forms of energy such as solar panels and wind turbines, install energy-efficient lightbulbs as well as buy organic food from local suppliers and make ambulances more environmentally friendly, the WHO said.

“The health sector, with its fleets of hospital vehicles, delivery vehicles, and staff and patient travel, is a transportation-intensive industry,” the WHO said, calling for the use of more efficient and alternative-fuel vehicles.

Just to let you know our hospital is wind powered so start praying that there will be wind during the operation

Fingers crossed that the wind turbines don't stop during your operation!


In the UK the media is getting very excited about wind power May 23, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

In the UK the media is getting very excited about wind power


By Ann McElhinney & Phelim McAleer

In the UK the media are getting very excited about wind power.

But as we discussed before environmental journalists seem to be little more than nodding dogs who endlessly believe and cheerlead everything they are told by activist groups.

Bringing truth to power seems to disappear when the power is a well funded environmental group. And so it is with wind power.


Recently the BBC and Channel 4 have carried big excited stories about a planned new wind farm in UK.

However neither felt it important to EVEN mention the little issue of “back up”. Both reports made much of the wind farm being able to power 180,000 homes which they stated could produce enough energy to power Glasgow.

But the nodding dogs are being dishonest and disingenuous. Wind will never power towns or cities on their own and giving that impression is both dangerous and misleading

We still need fossil fuels to keep us safe and the lights on as reported in this Reuters story.  “Britain, which aims to install about 30 gigawatts (GW) of wind turbines by 2020, will need to build almost as much backup power generation for calm weather periods, an executive from Scottish Power said on Wednesday,” Reuters reported.

“Thirty gigawatts of wind maybe requires 25 GW of backup,” said Rupert Steele, regulation director at the Scottish arm of Spain’s Iberdrola, one of the world’s largest wind farm operators. “The problem is that if you’ve got a high-pressured area, you may have quite a large area where there’s no wind at all … That happens also offshore,” he told Reuters.”


Environmentalists know this. Just ask them to send their child to a hospital whose system is fully dependent on wind power and watch them run in the other direction. They know that wind is erratic and will never supply the electricity that keeps our towns, cities factories, schools and hospitals running and all of us safe and healthy. But they don’t tell us this when they triumphantly pronounce that we can power the world with solar and wind. What is so much more disappointing is that so called ‘impartial’ reporters don’t tell us either.

Shame on you Channel 4 and BBC for not reporting this truth to your viewers.

See earlier story “The Answer My Friend is NOT Blowing in the Wind” here.

See more about Ann and Phelim’s important Not Evil, Just Wrong project.

See in this UK register story, about another green favorite boondoggle, the electric car. The Politicians’ obsession with electric cars is a waste of time – and costing British science and research dearly. So says Richard Pike, head of the Royal Chemistry Society, in a hard-hitting contribution to Research Fortnight (pdf).

The Green Bubble May 22, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: ,
add a comment

The Green Bubble


May 21, 2009

By Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger

Sometime after the release of An Inconvenient Truth in 2006, environmentalism crossed from political movement to cultural moment. Fortune 500 companies pledged to go carbon neutral. Seemingly every magazine in the country, including Sports Illustrated, released a special green issue. Paris dimmed the lights on the Eiffel Tower. Solar investments became hot, even for oil companies. Evangelical ministers preached the gospel of “creation care.” Even archconservative Newt Gingrich published a book demanding action on global warming.

Green had moved beyond politics. Gestures that were once mundane–bringing your own grocery bags to the store, shopping for secondhand clothes, taking the subway–were suddenly infused with grand significance. Actions like screwing in light bulbs, inflating tires, and weatherizing windows gained fresh urgency. A new generation of urban hipsters, led by Colin Beavan, a charismatic writer in Manhattan who had branded himself “No Impact Man,” proselytized the virtues of downscaling–dumpster-diving, thrift-store shopping, and trading in one’s beater car for a beater bike–while suburban matrons proudly clutched copies of Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food and came to see the purchase of each $4 heirloom tomato at the farmer’s market as an act of virtue.

For those caught up in the moment, the future seemed to promise both apocalypse and transcendence in roughly equal measure. The New York Times and San Francisco magazine ran long feature stories on the uptick of upper-middle- class professionals who worried to their therapists about polar bears or who dug through the trash cans of co-workers to recycle plastic bottles, as though suffering from a kind of eco-OCD. At the same time, folks like Pollan and Beavan provided a vision of green living that seemed to offer not just a smaller carbon footprint but a better life. Amid the fear was the hope that the ecological crisis would bring us together and make us happier.

And then, almost as quickly as it had inflated, the green bubble burst. Between January 2008 and January 2009, the percentage of Americans who told the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press that the environment was a “top priority” dropped from 56 percent to 41 percent. While surveys have long showed that enthusiasm for all things green is greatest among well-educated liberals, the new polling results were sobering. For the first time in a quarter century, more Americans told Gallup in March that they would prioritize economic growth “even if the environment suffers to some extent” than said they would prioritize environmental protection “even at the risk of curbing economic growth.” Soon thereafter, Shell announced it would halt its investments in solar and wind power.

Of course, environmentalism itself has not disappeared. Earth Day was celebrated last week, magazines and marketers continue to use green to sell to upscale audiences, and legislation to cap carbon emissions, albeit heavily watered-down, could still pass Congress. But the cultural moment marked by the ubiquity of green self-help, apocalypse talk, and cheery utopianism has passed. It is tempting to reduce this retrenchment to economic pressures alone, with concrete short-term concerns trumping more abstract worries about the future. But a closer look at the causes of the green bubble reveals a more complicated story, not just about the nature of environmentalism but about modern American life itself.

Green anti-modernism brings with it other contradictions. Despite the rhetoric about “one planet,” not all humans have the same interests when it comes to addressing global warming. Greens often note that the changing global climate will have the greatest impact on the world’s poor; they neglect to mention that the poor also have the most to gain from development fueled by cheap fossil fuels like coal. For the poor, the climate is already dangerous. They are already subject to the droughts, floods, hurricanes, and diseases that future warming will intensify. It is their poverty, not rising carbon-dioxide levels, that make them more vulnerable than the rest of us. By contrast, it is the richest humans–those of us who have achieved comfort, prosperity, and economic security for ourselves and for our children–who have the most to lose from the kind of apocalyptic global-warming scenarios that have so often been invoked in recent years. The existential threat so many of us fear is that we might all end up in a kind of global Somalia characterized by failed states, resource scarcity, and chaos. It is more than a little ironic that at the heart of the anti-modern green discourse resides the fear of losing our modernity.

Nonetheless, it has become an article of faith among many greens that the global poor are happier with less and must be shielded from the horrors of overconsumption and economic development–never mind the realities of infant mortality, treatable disease, short life expectancies, and grinding agrarian poverty. The convenient and ancient view among elites that the poor are actually spiritually rich, and the exaggeration of insignificant gestures like recycling and buying new lightbulbs, are both motivated by the cognitive dissonance created by simultaneously believing that not all seven billion humans on earth can “live like we live” and, consciously or unconsciously, knowing that we are unwilling to give up our high standard of living. This is the split “between what you think and what you do” to which Pollan refers, and it should, perhaps, come as no surprise that so many educated liberals, living at the upper end of a social hierarchy that was becoming ever more stratified, should find the remedies that Pollan and Beavan offer so compelling. But, while planting a backyard garden may help heal the eco-anxieties of affluent greens, it will do little to heal the planet or resolve the larger social contradictions that it purports to address. Read much more of this insightful look into the Green Bubble.

Carbon dioxide emissions drop in 2008 May 21, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

Carbon dioxide emissions drop in 2008

Yahoo News, May 21, 2009

WASHINGTON – There is a positive note to the country’s economic woes and last summer’s $4-per-gallon gasoline: The nation in 2008 had a record decline in the amount of climate-changing carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.

The government reported Wednesday that energy-related carbon dioxide emissions declined by 2.8 percent last year compared to 2007, the largest annual drop since the government began regular reporting of greenhouse gas pollution.

Emissions from the residential sector fell 1.2 percent. A colder winter caused more emissions in winter, but that was countered by a cooler summer that required less use of air conditioning, the EIA report said. Overall, electric power companies saw emissions decline 2.1 percent. While much of that drop was economy related, some was attributed to greater use of wind turbines for electricity production.

Read it all here

The Sky Isn’t Falling [and it never was] May 20, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: ,
add a comment

The Sky Isn’t Falling [and it never was]

Written by Thomas Richard Tuesday, May 19 2009
Climate Change Fraud

Fareed Zakaria, in the latest issue of Newsweek, wonders how the media, researchers, and scientists got it all so very wrong on the extent of a swine flu pandemic that was to infect ‘millions’ and cause untoward worldwide damage:

Three weeks ago the World Health Organization declared a health emergency, warning countries to “prepare for a pandemic” and said that the only question was the extent of worldwide damage. Senior officials prophesied that millions could be infected by the disease. But as of last week, the WHO had confirmed only 4,800 cases of swine flu, with 61 people having died of it. Obviously, these low numbers are a pleasant surprise, but it does make one wonder, what did we get wrong?

He has his theories on how this issue garnered so much media attention, and posits:

Once we see a problem, we can describe it in great detail, extrapolating all its possible consequences….They [the researchers] described—and the media reported—what would happen if it went unchecked.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because the exact same scenario happened with so-called man-made global warming. With one important difference. A lot of money is being made from the climate change scare. Some have estimated it to be in the trillions. There is no doubt it’s in the billions. A swine flu vaccine is $10 (once created) and even free depending on your health plan. You can’t build a cottage industry around a summer flu. You can build one around something you can’t prove is happening, is still a theory, and can be blamed for every one of mankind’s ills.

Zakaria wraps up his take-the-media-to-the-woodshed commentary by reminding readers that history is our greatest teacher when it comes to media scare tactics:

Read the rest here

So we might get cooler instead? May 19, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: ,
add a comment

So we might get cooler instead?

Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun, May 19, 2009

No kidding:

THE accuracy of Australian climate forecasting could fall unless the Bureau of Meteorology is given more funding for super computers, researchers say. The bureau has warned that its long-term climate forecast capability may have peaked and could even have started to decline.

You mean, the bureau might be seeing warming in an Antarctic that’s actually cooling? Or predict dry when it actually floods?

Al Gore’s Hypocrisy Astounding May 18, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , ,

Al Gore’s Hypocrisy Astounding


By Jay Ambrose

Here’s the first thing you shouldn’t do in front of Al Gore: Be skeptical about catastrophic, human-caused global warming. He will rip your reputation apart, just as he once did to reputable, honorable scientists in congressional hearings. Here’s the second thing you shouldn’t do in front of Al Gore: Ask him whether he himself might have the kind of conflict of interest that he takes for granted in others. For heaven’s sake, do not get into the question of whether he might make a lot of money with the passage of a global warming cap-and-trade tax that he has been fighting for.


Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee thought it might be interesting to find out. After all, Gore is associated with a venture capital company that has invested about $1 billion in companies that just might make a bundle should cap-and-trade become law. So she asked if he would benefit. Emitting a sigh made infamous in a debate way back when, Gore first replied that “a green economy . . . is good for all of us.” He then said yes, he was a partner in the venture capital company, adding quickly and emphatically that “every penny” he made from environmental investments went to the non-profit Alliance for Climate Protection.

With a smirk on his face, he huffed that no one who knew him would ever think he had been working on the global warming issue for 30 years for “greed.” When Blackburn said she wasn’t making accusations, he said, “I understand exactly what you’re doing, Congresswoman. Everybody here does.” Blackburn called it quits at about that point, although she could have noted that Gore was founder and chairman of the non-profit group he mentioned. She could have explored whether some of the money he gives to the group redounds to him in other ways, such as expense-paid trips. She could also have gotten into reports that his net worth is now $100 million, when it was put at $2 million when he left politics. She could have pursued the tax advantages of his charitable donations. But she didn’t, and I think it is just as well she didn’t. The money Gore’s made since he was vice president seems to come mostly from Internet ventures and speeches given at $175,000 a whack, and I doubt seriously that his campaign on global warming has anything much to do with money. The man is a true believer, or so I believe.

And yet, his hypocrisy is astounding. While he cannot believe anyone could ever conceivably have reason to question his motives, he has never hesitated to question the motives of those who differed with him. In that case, you were bought out by ExxonMobil or are an equivalent of Bernie Madoff, the Ponzi-scheme swindler. Congressional hearings he conducted in 1992 have been described as inquisitorial show trials. One victim, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, has written about scientists being “in the crosshairs” of Gore, who “tried to bully” them into changing “their views and supporting his climate alarmism.” Lindzen also refers to a failed Gore effort to “enlist Ted Koppel (then a TV host) in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists.”

Lindzen is viewed by some as one of the nation’s foremost climatologist. Unlike Gore – whose movie and slide show have been rife with error – he knows what he is talking about, probably a major reason Gore won’t debate him. Lindzen years ago did about $10,000 worth of work as a witness for fossil-fuel companies. There was nothing wrong with that, and he clearly was not corrupted by it. Whatever Gore believes, the global warming debate is not over, but what should be over is waging it as an ad hominem contest in which science itself is hurt along with scientists whose arguments should be weighed on their merits. Read more here.

Monbiot tries to disprove Christopher Booker, then admits he boobed May 16, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: ,
1 comment so far

How to disprove Christopher Booker in 26 seconds

By George Monbiot
UK Guardian, May 15, 2009

Arctic ice levels above average? Perhaps the Telegraph’s columnist should take just half a minute to check the facts

5.12pm update

Whoops – looks like I’ve boobed. Sorry folks. As one of the posters on this thread points out, there are in fact two averages in play – 1979-2000 and 1979-2009. It is therefore correct to state that the April 2009 extent exceeds the 1979-2009 average, but not the 1979-2000 average. It remains the case, however, that the data relate to April, not May. Please accept my apologies for my mistake and the confusion it has caused.

How long does it take to disprove a claim by columnist Christopher Booker? I brought out my stopwatch today and conducted a short – a very short – experiment. In this week’s Sunday Telegraph, he maintained that:

The latest satellite information from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (passed on by the Watts Up With That blog) shows that, after the third slowest melt of April Arctic ice in 30 years, the world’s polar sea ice is in fact slightly above its average extent for early May since satellite records began in 1979.

I set the stopwatch running, pasted “National Snow and Ice Data Center” into Google, found the site, clicked on News and Events > Press room > Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis and discovered that Booker’s claim was nonsense. It took me 26 seconds.

Read the rest here

What if global-warming fears are overblown? May 14, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

What if global-warming fears are overblown?

Fortune, May 14, 2009

In a Fortune interview, noted climatologist John Christy contends the green crusade to fight climate change is “all cost and no benefit.”

NEW YORK (Fortune) — With Congress about to take up sweeping climate-change legislation, expect to hear more in coming weeks from John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama-Huntsville.

A veteran climatologist who refuses to accept any research funding from the oil or auto industries, Christy was a lead author of the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report as well as one of the three authors of the American Geophysical Union’s landmark 2003 statement on climate change.

Yet despite those green-sounding credentials, Christy is not calling for draconian cuts in carbon emissions. Quite the contrary. Christy is actually the environmental lobby’s worst nightmare – an accomplished climate scientist with no ties to Big Oil who has produced reams and reams of data that undermine arguments that the earth’s atmosphere is warming at an unusual rate and question whether the remedies being talked about in Congress will actually do any good.

Christy’s critics in the blogosphere assume his research is funded by the oil industry. But Christy has testified in federal court that his research is funded by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration and that the only money he has ever received from corporate interests – $2,000 from the Competitive Enterprise Institute for penning a chapter of a global warming book in 2002 – he gave away to a charity, the Christian Women’s Job Corps.

Read the rest here

Another in the Non-Consensus Camp May 13, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: ,

Another in the Non-Consensus Camp


By Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent

That would be Karl Bohnak, chief meteorologist at WLUC-TV on Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, who calls global warming alarmism his “pet peeve” and finally got so fed up with it that he wrote to his congressman, Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak. He shared his letter in a blog post on his station’s Web site:

For years as a broadcast meteorologist, I kept silent about the issue of “global warming.” Declaring skepticism labeled you (and still does) as an anti-environmentalist. After former VP Gore’s movie hit the big screen, I could remain silent no more.  “An Inconvenient Truth” was filled with so many gross distortions and outright scientific misrepresentations; I felt it was my obligation to speak out.

CO2 is not a pollutant and it’s not a problem.  The problem is rent-seeking corporations looking to cash in on cap and trade and low-output, high-cost alternative energy.  As your Michigan House colleague Congressman Dingell says “cap and trade is a tax, and it’s a great big one.” This is not the time to raise energy prices, which is what this bill will surely do.  I believe the majority of your constituents will suffer adversely if this legislation is passed.

After receiving Stupak’s standard constituent letter, Bohnak responded with some data that clarified some of the congressman’s misconceptions. Then Bohnak addresses readers of his blog, and specifically takes aim at his own industry – the media:

Note Congressman Stupak’s response on the issue of higher energy costs.  He states that he wants to make sure “unreasonable costs” are not passed on to consumers.  I ask, “What are unreasonable costs?” I do not want to pay ANY higher costs (reasonable or unreasonable) for a problem that just isn’t there.

I ask you to look at the data.  Don’t fall for the line that “An overwhelming majority of scientists agree that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing this unusual warming of our planet.” Majority rule is not how science is conducted.  If one wants to play that game, there’s a growing segment of scientists that have declared themselves “global warming skeptics.” Get as much information as you can, but you will NOT get it from the mainstream media (MSM).  The MSM is in the business of whipping up fear (look at the recent swine flu story).  Stories that the world is heading toward a precipice are right up its alley.  Also, there is at least one corporate media owner (My note, not Bohnak’s: this is General Electric, owner of NBC) that has a high stake in seeing this bill passed.

A subtly brave statement by Bohnak, considering his station/s network affiliation. Good for him. See Paul’s post here.