December 2009

This is interesting. Watch this short video (not able to embed) from the good guys at AccuWeather and early in the segment they show a map that illustrates the “historical chance of a white Christmas” for the entire continental U.S. If you look carefully you will see that Houston is on the cusp of “none,” or no chance.

I guess they should have asked about their chances for snow in the nation’s 4th-largest city on December 4th. Of course this is not evidence that discredits global warming trends. After all, it’s only a local event, and localized phenomena are only capable of proving global warming, not disproving it.

A lot of us have more than one email account — one for personal use, and one for work. We do that for several reasons. We want to keep our private lives separate from our professional activities. We don’t want bosses and co-workers to know everything that goes on at home. Employers have the right to know what staff members are doing with their work-time and company resources — which includes official email accounts — so those things are subject to scrutiny. If we work for the government (and therefore taxpayers), then we are subject to even greater oversight. So we isolate our personal electronic correspondence and in most cases employers don’t bother to ask about it — and if they did, they’d have some pretty upset employees on their hands.

So here we have Penn State University Climategate-ologist Michael Money-Mann outraged over outsiders viewing his “private” correspondence:

“It’s an 11th-hour smear campaign where they’ve stolen personal e-mails from scientists, mined them for single words or phrases that can be taken out of context and misrepresent what scientists are saying,” said Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth Systems Science Center, in a teleconference Friday with reporters.

Unless it’s his own employer taking a look:

Mann said he welcomed the inquiry.

“They are just reviewing the facts and (looking) into whether there is any validity to the specious claims, in my view, that are being made,” he said in a phone interview Wednesday night. “That’s exactly what they should be doing, and I am fully in support of that.”

Where’s the outrage, Mike? If these truly were personal correspondence, you’d have a right to be upset and insist that no one view your emails. Of course that’s not the case — you work for a public university, and sent messages to public university addresses of other scientists. It’s more likely that you are expecting Penn State to cover your rear end. You’re probably right.

Let’s break down the alarmist-activist-Leftist-scientists’ primary line of defense, helpfully parroted by the formerly mainstream media: That “they’ve stolen personal emails.”

1. “They’ve” — implies someone from the group of skeptics they disdain was the one to pilfer and expose their messages. But CRU, Mann, and the rest of their cabal have no idea who exposed the records.

2. “stolen” — CRU, Mann, etc. cannot prove the records were extracted by an outside entity. They may have been exposed by a whistleblower. Those types are often celebrated as heroes when they scandals are revealed.

3. “personal” — We’ve already addressed that above and elsewhere.

4. “emails” — yes, and so much more. They don’t even want to talk about the corrupted source code, which a software engineer — who is not a climate skeptic — interviewed by BBC said was, let’s say, less than professional.

But expect the made-up story of “stolen personal emails” to continue — at least until they are discredited about that as well.

President Obama and other cap-and-trade advocates assured us they had ”learned from Europe’s mistakes” and would auction all emission permits rather than hand them out at no charge to favored constituencies. Then the sausage factory known as Congress took over. The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill proposes to dole out 85% of emission permits to preferred interest groups during the first several years of the program.

What explains this flip-flop? 100% auctioning turns a cap-and-trade program into an energy tax by another name. Actually, whether the permits are auctioned or not, cap-and-trade still raises consumer energy prices, but when permits are auctioned cap-and-trade is nakedly a revenue raiser for the bureaucratic sector. So Waxman-Markey drafters got cute and decided to phase in the auctions over time, on the theory, apparently, that we’re dumb as proverbial frogs in a pot of slowly boiling water and won’t notice being taxed by increments.

Another of the supposed “mistakes” Europe made in setting up its emissions trading system (ETS) was to “over-allocate” emission permits. This crashed the market for energy ration coupons, undercutting any incentive to reduce emissions or invest in lower-carbon energy technologies.

Well, ten Northeastern states, keen to demonstrate their climate leadership and solidarity with the Kyoto Protocol, got together and enacted the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a multi-state cap-and-trade program in which almost all carbon permits are auctioned.

However, as Greenwire reports today (subscription required), “RGGI emission prices continue to slide in sixth auction”: 

Prices slid again in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative’s (RGGI) sixth auction for 2009 emissions allowances to $2.05 per short ton of carbon dioxide equivalent, the Northeast pact announced here today. The previous auction netted $2.19 per ton in September.

More importantly, ”… 2012 allowances fell slightly in the Wednesday auction, to $1.86 per ton, from $1.87 in September.”

Why so?  “There’s way too much supply, and there is no demand,” said Tim Cheung, an analyst with New Energy Finance. “You’re going to have these excess allowances that will continue to carry over to future years, which is why we think that prices will remain depressed going forward.”

RGGI avoided one of Europe’s “mistakes” only to repeat another. Among other things, the plunge in permit prices means RGGI is doing and will do squat to reduce emissions.

So even when politicians auction permits, rather than hand out them out as freebies, they can still run a system as ineffectual (in terms of its stated purposes) as Europe’s ETS.

Which raises an obvious question: Besides giving New England politicos a platform on which to preen and prate about their efforts to save the planet, what is RGGI good for?

Raising taxes, of course. Greenwire reports that:

About 31 million allowances were sold this week, mostly to energy producers facing RGGI compliance rules and secondary market traders. Participants bought 28.5 million 2009 allowances and just under 2.2 million 2012 allowance futures, with cash-strapped state governments garnering $61.6 million [emphasis added].

All told, RGGI has raised about $500 million for state governments in auction proceeds. But here’s where the story gets really interesting. “The 10 RGGI state governments are supposed to use auction proceeds to fund renewable energy or energy efficiency initiatives, but governments are using that cash to plug holes in their budgets.” 

Greenwire mentions two examples:

Earlier this week, the research firm Point Carbon pointed to New York as the latest to cheat, with Albany passing a bill that will allow it to tap $90 million of RGGI auction proceeds to help fill its $5 billion budget shortfall. Today, New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation said the state drew $25.4 million in Wednesday’s auction.

Maryland became the first state to break ranks and use RGGI cash for a project not related to clean energy promotion. In April, Bloomberg reported that Maryland’s Legislature voted to use $70 million of its auction revenue for a rebate program designed to help low-income residents pay electricity bills.

It’s just like my colleague Myron Ebell likes to say. “There are three things you need to know about cap-and-trade: It’s a tax, it’s a tax, it’s a tax.”

Today’s New York Times has a classic dog-bites-man story. The green energy sector is shedding jobs, despite being given billions of taxpayers’ dollars by Presidents Bush and Obama.

As so often happens, regulators’ efforts to change people’s behaviors aren’t working as hoped.

To paraphrase Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren’s work on ethanol subsidies: if it’s commercially viable, then it doesn’t need any subsidies. If it isn’t, no amount of subsidy will make it so.

ClimateGate is serious.  When prominent climate scientists fudge results, refuse FOIA requests, take steps to restrict publication of dissident views, etc., it’s serious business, especially when their global temperature records were used by policymakers to call for a transformation of modern economies.

However, there is some humor in ClimateGate.  Here’s some odd stuff a commenter on the website Climate Audit picked up as a result of checking out the file HARRY_READ_ME.txt – one of the hacked files.  The “Harry” file tells the tortured story of a programmer at CRU struggling to make sense of inconsistent, missing, and incompatible data files and seemingly to try to replicate them.  Many of those files had earlier been compiled by someone named “Tim,” who seems to have really made a mess of things.  According to the commenter, this “Tim” seems to be Tim Mitchell – who worked at the Climactic Research Unit at University of East Anglia when he was a Ph.D. student and then received his degree.  At the time, he also was a member of — no joke — South Park Evangelical Church, as he notes in his religious writings on climate change and religion.

Here’s an example:

The government urges us to reduce our energy usage so that we may indulge ourselves in other ways, but we have a higher motive for reducing waste (1 Timothy 6.17-19). Although I have yet to see any evidence that climate change is a sign of Christ’s imminent return, human pollution is clearly another of the birth pangs of creation, as it eagerly awaits being delivered from the bondage of corruption (Romans. 19-22).

That does make me a little uncomfortable about this guy being in charge of global temperature records to show we’re destroying the earth.  Can’t check out his academic/research papers at CRU.  Surprisingly, they’ve been taken down.

Yesterday, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and 350.org petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for carbon dioxide (CO2) pegged at 350 parts per million (ppm). CO2 concentrations are currently about 387 ppm. The CBD is the eco-litigation group that successfully sued the Fish and Wildlife Service to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

I’ll have more to say about the specifics of the CBD-350.org petition (available here) in a later post. For now, I just want to note that the petition is additional confirmation that Massachusetts v. EPA, the April 2007 Supreme Court global warming case, is a bottomless well of absurd results that imperil both our economy and the U.S. Constitution.

CEI has been saying from day one – in our comment on EPA’s July 2008 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, our comment on EPA’s April 2009 Endangerment Proposal, our comment on EPA’s September 2009 Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards Proposal, and in columns about Mass. v. EPA when the case was still pending – that an endangerment finding under Sec. 202 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) would satisfy the endangerment test in CAA Sec. 108 and, thus, trigger a NAAQS rulemaking.

Not even a global economic depression sustained over many decades would be enough to stabilize atmospheric CO2 levels at 350 ppm — the goal of the CBD-350.org petition. For example, even if the world’s governments could somehow dial back global CO2 emissions to 1957 levels, when the global economy was smaller than one-third its present size, and then hold CO2 emissions constant for the next nine decades, global concentrations would still increase to 455 ppm by 2100.

Obviously, when Congress enacted the Clean Air Act, it did not authorize EPA to squash the U.S. economy. Indeed, one of the Act’s main purposes is to protect the “productive capacity” of the American people (CAA Sec. 101).

Nonetheless, by misreading the Act to include authority to regulate CO2 as an “air pollutant,” the Supreme Court set the stage for a regulatory chain reaction, including establishment of NAAQS for CO2 set below current atmospheric levels, which would effectively turn the CAA into a national economic suicide pact. 

This is not the only ”absurd result” that follows from the Court’s misreading of the Act in Mass. v. EPA. According to EPA’s proposed Tailoring Rule, “literal” (i.e. lawful) application of the CAA to greenhouse gases would annually require 41,000 small firms to apply for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permits and 6.1 million firms to apply for Title V operating permits. In other words, EPA and its state counterparts would have to process 140 times as many PSD permits and 400 times as many Title V permits per year as they do now. The permitting programs would crash under their own weight, construction activity would grind to a screeching halt, and millions of firms would suddenly find themselves operating in legal limbo. A more potent Anti-Stimulus Package would be hard to imagine.

To avoid these problems, EPA’s Tailoring Rule proposes, over the next six years, to exempt firms emitting less than 25,000 tons per year (TPY) of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases, even though the statute specifies that PSD and Title V shall apply to sources with potential to emit 250 TPY and 100 TPY of any regulated pollutant, respectively. The Tailoring Rule is actually an Amending Rule. To prevent Mass. v. EPA from turning the CAA into an economic wrecking ball, EPA proposes to play lawmaker and suspend provisions it doesn’t like, violating the separation of powers.

Even if the Tailoring Rule survives judicial challenge, which is doubtful, because it flouts clear statutory language, it would in no way lessen the threat of economy-crushing NAAQS regulation of CO2.

There is only one sensible course for policymakers to take: Overturn Mass. v. EPA. Congress should enact legislation, such as H.R. 391 introduced by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), clarifying that CO2 is not subject to regulation under the CAA for climate change purposes.

From the thousands of email and other documents that comprise “Climategate,” this is one of the most interesting: It’s a “travesty” that “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment.” (Emphasis added.) Further, “any consideration of geoengineering [is] quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not!”

What does “at the moment” actually mean? Would you guess the past 10 years! That’s right; no warming in the past decade even as so-called “greenhouse gas emissions” and ambient concentrations are at historical highs! Does this prove global warming is a “hoax”? No. But it proves the simple equation of “more greenhouse gases = more warming” is false. Read about it in my new Forbes Online piece, “Show Me the Warming.”

Pennsylvania State University’s Climategate guy, hockey stick creator Michael Mann, has already come under scrutiny from the school over suspicions that he manipulated data to fit his global warming alarmism faith. For good measure state Senator Jeffrey Piccola, chairman of the Education Committee, wants to make sure PSU president Graham Spanier follows through, as he explained in a letter he sent today:

The allegations of intellectual and scientific fraud like those made against Dr. Mann are serious against anybody involved in academics, but the impact in this case is significantly elevated. The work of Dr. Mann and other scientists at the CRU is being used to develop economic and environmental policies in states and countries across the world. Considering the saliency of the work being conducted by the CRU, anything short of the pursuit of absolute science cannot be accepted or tolerated.

Piccola’s take-home message for Spanier is if his investigation is a whitewash, then the PA Senate Education Committee will conduct its own look-see-find.

Hat tip: Commonwealth Foundation, which on Monday made their own request for an investigation of Mann.