Blog

RGGI: A tax is a tax is a tax

by Marlo Lewis on December 4, 2009

in Blog

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.”

Regulation of the Day 78: Green Energy Subsidies

by Ryan Young on December 4, 2009

in Blog

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 gets even more bizarre

by Fran Smith on December 3, 2009

in Blog

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.

NAAQS Petition Confirms Mass v. EPA Is Bottomless Well of Absurd Results

by Marlo Lewis on December 3, 2009

in Blog

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.

“Show Me the Warming,” my piece in Forbes Online

by Michael Fumento on December 3, 2009

in Blog

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.”

More Heat on Mann at Home

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on December 3, 2009

in Blog

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.

Dear Ben Santer: Resign

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on December 3, 2009

in Science

Dr. Ben Santer, one of the climate modelers who works on the public dime at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, has called all his comrades to join him in a weep-fest over the “crime” of Climategate. Of course this bully who wanted to “beat the crap out of” former Virginia state climatologist Pat Michaels thinks he’s the victim, as he explains in a letter to “colleagues and friends:”

I am sure that by now, all of you are aware of the hacking incident which recently took place at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). This was a criminal act. Over 3,000 emails and documents were stolen. The identity of the hacker or hackers is still unknown.

The emails represented private correspondence between CRU scientists and scientists at climate research centers around the world. Dozens of the stolen emails are from over a decade of my own personal correspondence with Professor Phil Jones, the Director of CRU.

How the Climategate emails were extracted from the UEA CRUnit may or may not have been a “criminal act” — that has still not been determined. But Dr. Thug clearly doesn’t understand how this whole public/private nature of correspondence is categorized. Let me explain.

Private emails between two or more parties: These are sent and delivered between personal email accounts such as those set up for individuals and private businesses on services like Google and Yahoo! You know, like the personal accounts that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin utilized last year that were illegally hacked.

Public emails subject to open scrutiny and broad dissemination: These only need to be sent by, or delivered to, at least one email address that is a public, government institution funded by taxpayers. An example in Great Britain would be the University of East Anglia, where Phil Jones was once director of the CRU. Another example, in the U.S., would be the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where every employee has a “llnl.gov” email address. That “dot-gov” suffix is a dead giveaway.

I suppose there are exceptions in the law for LLNL and other government agencies to withhold documents and emails from the public for national security purposes. Much as Santer might like to think global warming is one of those exemptions, I doubt he could successfully make a legal case for that.

So Santer’s messages to Jones and others at UEA were not “private” or “personal” correspondence. If he wanted them to be, he should not have used his llnl.gov email account with his official LLNL affiliation in the signature line. He should know better, since LLNL makes clear those distinctions. But if he did want to communicate with Jones on that level, I doubt he could have conducted official government business — such as discussion of climate data — on a Google account. That would have been evading public scrutiny. A Santer-Jones Google exchange would have had to been about the merits of U.S. vs. European football or something like that.

One last thing about Santer: he might want to review LLNL’s “Mission, Vision and Values” statement “that guides the way we accomplish our work and the way we interact with each other, our colleagues, sponsors and stakeholders, and the public.” Included among the values:

  • Integrity and responsible stewardship of the public trust
  • Intense competition of ideas with respect for individuals
  • Treating each other with dignity
  • A high-quality, motivated workforce with diverse ideas, skills, and backgrounds

How the desire to “beat the crap out of” someone who is a fellow scientist, and who is also a taxpayer who helps pay his salary, is in accord with these above values is something I’d love to hear Santer explain.

But from the looks of his whiny letter, he’s of a completely different mindset. He thinks that while he’s on the public payroll that he has the right to intimidate dissenters, and to keep everything he writes in his LLNL role a secret. Clearly he hates accountability to his bosses.

Looks like there’s no other choice for him, then, but to quit.

Let’s Not Call the Whole Thing Off

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on December 2, 2009

in Blog

What does Senate Environment and Public Works chairwoman (I assume she doesn’t want to be called “chairman”) Barbara Boxer call Climategate?

“You call it ‘Climategate’; I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate,'” she said during a committee meeting. “Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not? I’m looking at these e-mails, that, even though they were stolen, are now out in the public.”

Boxer showed her passion for law-and-order at today’s committee meeting.

Boxer said her committee may hold hearings into the matter as its top Republican, Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), has asked for, but that a criminal probe would be part of any such hearings.

“We may well have a hearing on this, we may not. We may have a briefing for senators, we may not,” Boxer said. “Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated.

“This is a crime,” Boxer said.

Considering that a lot of Climategate has to do with the muzzling of scientists that hold views contrary to alarmism, you might think the honorific-conscious senator would be concerned about the exclusion of their research from professional journals. After all, nearly four years ago she demanded an investigation into the Bush administration’s alleged silencing of NASA’s James Hansen:

In light of recent reports that the Bush Administration attempted to severely restrict NASA’s top climate scientist Dr. James E. Hansen from discussing his scientific findings on global warming, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today urged two Senate Committees to investigate the extent of the Administration’s efforts to censor scientists for political purposes.

Got that? TWO committees!! For ONE guy! Who lied about it!

Mann’s Mad Money

by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent on December 2, 2009

in Blog

Since watching the Climategate scandal explode a week before Thanksgiving, debris from the mushroom cloud has rained upon the earth, and there are hints that some folks (other than me and my fellow climate realists) are getting curious about how the alarmists are funded. It used to be the narrative of the formerly mainstream media, when they deemed it worthy to include perspective from the “skeptic” side, always came with a “financed by Big Oil” disclaimer — whether it was true or not. Meanwhile the warmists’ financial gain from the game was irrelevant in the media’s eyes.

It’s been widely reported in the blogosphere about the millions of dollars in grants that East Anglia CRUnit director Phil Jones collected for his climate modeling, but so far I haven’t seen much detail about his fellow email correspondents. What about ’em?

Inarguably the next-largest culprit is Michael Mann, Mr. Nature Trick, who is not to be confused with the Nature Boy or the other “Heat“-making Mann. He has had his grants available for public viewing for a while, so I’m surprised I’ve not seen those spread around the ‘Net. They are right there listed in his curriculum vitae.

In these days of skulduggery and hack-for-a-hack frontier justice on the Wild, Wild, Web, it’s a good idea to replicate things. You never know when public records on display at a public university might suddenly disappear. So for the benefit of those interested in climate science transparency and even Mr. Mann himself (“I would be disappointed if the university wasn’t doing all [it] can to get as much information as possible” about the controversy), I will list here his funded proposals since 2006 from his CV:

2009-2013 Quantifying the influence of environmental temperature on transmission of vector-borne diseases, NSF-EF [Principal Investigator: M. Thomas; Co-Investigators: R.G. Crane, M.E. Mann, A. Read, T. Scott (Penn State Univ.)] $1,884,991

2009-2012 Toward Improved Projections of the Climate Response to Anthropogenic Forcing: Combining Paleoclimate Proxy and Instrumental Observations with an Earth System Model, NSF-ATM [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann; Co-Investigators: K. Keller (Penn State Univ.), A. Timmermann (Univ. of Hawaii)] $541,184

2008-2011 A Framework for Probabilistic Projections of Energy-Relevant Streamflow Indices, DOE [Principal Investigator: T. Wagener; Co-Investigators: M. Mann, R. Crane, K. Freeman (Penn State Univ.)] $330,000

2008-2009 AMS Industry/Government Graduate Fellowship (Anthony Sabbatelli), American Meteorological Society [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.)] $23,000

2006-2009 Climate Change Collective Learning and Observatory Network in Ghana, USAID [Principal Investigator: P. Tschakert; Co-Investigators: M.E. Mann, W. Easterling (Penn State Univ.)] $759,928

2006-2009 Analysis and testing of proxy-based climate reconstructions, NSF-ATM [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.)] $459,000

2006-2009 Constraining the Tropical Pacific’s Role in Low-Frequency Climate Change of the Last Millennium, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigators: K. Cobb (Georgia Tech Univ.), N. Graham (Hydro. Res. Center), M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.), Hoerling (NOAA Clim. Dyn. Center), Alexander (NOAA Clim. Dyn. Center)] PSU award (M.E. Mann): $68,065

2006-2007 Acquisition of high-performance computing cluster for the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC), NSF-EAR [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann, Co-Investigators: R. Alley, M. Arthur, J. Evans, D. Pollard (Penn State Univ.)] $100,000

2003-2006 Decadal Variability in the Tropical Indo-Pacific: Integrating Paleo & Coupled Model Results, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigators: M.E. Mann (U.Va), J. Cole (U. Arizona), V. Mehta (CRCES)] U.Va award (M.E. Mann): $102,000

2002-2005 Reconstruction and Analysis of Patterns of Climate Variability Over the Last One to Two Millennia, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann, Co-Investigators: S. Rutherford, R.S. Bradley, M.K. Hughes] $315,000

2002-2005 Remote Observations of Ice Sheet Surface Temperature: Toward Multi-Proxy Reconstruction of Antarctic Climate Variability, NSF-Office of Polar Programs, Antarctic Oceans and Climate System [Principal Investigators: M.E. Mann (U. Va), E. Steig (U. Wash.), D. Weinbrenner (U. Wash)] U.Va award (M.E. Mann): $133,000

2002-2003 Paleoclimatic Reconstructions of the Arctic Oscillation, NOAA-Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research (CIFAR) Program [Principal Investigators: Rosanne D’Arrigo, Ed Cook (Lamont/Columbia); Co-Investigator: M.E. Mann] U.Va subcontract (M.E. Mann): $14,400

2002-2003 Global Multidecadal-to-Century-Scale Oscillations During the Last 1000 years, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigator: Malcolm Hughes (Univ. of Arizona); Co-Investigators: M.E. Mann; J. Park (Yale University)] U.Va subcontract (M.E. Mann): $20,775

2001-2003 Resolving the Scale-wise Sensitivities in the Dynamical Coupling Between Climate and the Biosphere, University of Virginia-Fund for Excellence in Science and Technology (FEST) [Principal Investigator: J.D. Albertson; Co-Investigators: H. Epstein, M.E. Mann] U.Va internal award: $214,700

2001-2002 Advancing predictive models of marine sediment transport, Office of Naval Research [Principal Investigator: P. Wiberg (U.Va), Co-Investigator: M.E. Mann] $20,775

1999-2002 Multiproxy Climate Reconstruction: Extension in Space and Time, and Model/Data Intercomparison, NOAA-Earth Systems History [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann (U.Va), Co-Investigators: R.S. Bradley, M.K. Hughes] $381,647

1998-2000 Validation of Decadal-to-Multi-century climate predictions, DOE [Principal Investigator: R.S. Bradley (U. Mass); Co-Investigators: H.F. Diaz, M.E. Mann]

1998-2000 The changing seasons? Detecting and understanding climatic change, NSF-Hydrological Science [Principal Investigator U. Lall (U. Utah); Co-investigators: M.E. Mann, B. Rajagopalan, M. Cane] $266,235K

1996-1999 Patterns of Organized Climatic Variability: Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Globally

Distributed Climate Proxy Records and Long-term Model Integrations, NSF-Earth Systems History [Principal Investigator: R.S. Bradley (U. Mass); Co-Investigators: M.E. Mann, M.K. Hughes] $270,000

1996-1998 Investigation of Patterns of Organized Large-Scale Climatic Variability During the Last

Millennium, DOE, Alexander Hollaender Postdoctoral Fellowship [M.E. Mann] $78,000

For those keeping score, that’s almost $6 million total for various predictions, models and reconstructions over the last 13 years by Mann and his playmates. Note also the generally escalating grant amounts in recent years. A lot of that is from the government’s National Science Foundation and NOAA teats. Wouldn’t trains and Tinkertoys been just as much fun and cost a whole lot less?

Anyway, Pennsylvania State University, where Mann is currently housed, is investigating him now. Mann calls Climategate a “manufactured controversy.” Some alumni are calling for his ouster. Will he follow Phil? Maybe they can carry on their pen pal-manship somewhere else off the taxpayer dime.

Following the scientific method: an example

by Fran Smith on December 2, 2009

in Blog

Experiments in science that don’t reinforce scientists’ hypotheses can be vitally important in understanding complex systems. Serious scientists don’t fudge the results or hide the data.

Here’s a recent example of a global warming study to show the effects of CO2-caused ocean acidification on the shells of crustaceans.  Researchers at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) found that, contrary to their expectations, many of the crustaceans built tougher shells in waters that were more acidified from higher levels of CO2.

According to the press release,

“We were surprised that some organisms didn’t behave in the way we expected under elevated CO2,” said Anne L. Cohen, a research specialist at WHOI and one of the study’s co-authors. “What was really interesting was that some of the creatures, the coral, the hard clam and the lobster, for example, didn’t seem to care about CO2 until it was higher than about 1,000 parts per million [ppm].” Current atmospheric CO2 levels are about 380 ppm, she said. Above this level, calcification was reduced in the coral and the hard clam, but elevated in the lobster.

The “take-home message, “says Cohen, is that “we can’t assume that elevated CO2 causes a proportionate decline in calcification of all calcifying organisms.” WHOI and the National Science Foundation funded the work.

Sounds like a useful project to add to the knowledge about CO2’s effects. Also, sounds like they’re following the scientific method.

H/T Julian Morris on Facebook

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →