SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (75323)3/10/2017 11:46:35 AM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 86355
 
Lindzen responds to the MIT letter objecting to his petition to Trump to withdraw from the UNFCC.
Anthony Watts / 52 mins ago March 9, 2017

Apparently, MIT didn’t like its name being used in petition to Trump. Dr. Richard Lindzen responds to that letter.

March 9, 2017

President Donald Trump
The White House
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

On 2 March, 2017, members of the MIT Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate (PAOC) sent a public letter to the White House, contesting the Petition I circulated. The Petition, signed by over 330 scientists from around the world so far, called for governments to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Since MIT’s administration has made the climate issue a major focus for the Institute, with PAOC playing a central role, it is not surprising that the department would object to any de-emphasis. But the PAOC letter shows very clearly the wisdom of James Madison’s admonition, in the Federalist, 10:

“No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time.”

For far too long, one body of men, establishment climate scientists, has been permitted to be judges and parties on what the “risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide” really are.

Let me explain in somewhat greater detail why we call for withdrawal from the UNFCCC.

The UNFCCC was established twenty five years ago to find scientific support for dangers from increasing carbon dioxide. While this has led to generous and rapidly increased support for the field, the purported dangers remain hypothetical, model-based projections. By contrast, the benefits of increasing CO2 and modest warming are clearer than ever, and they are supported by dramatic satellite images of a greening Earth.

We note that:

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer claims a greater likelihood of significant as opposed to negligible future warming,It has long been acknowledged by the IPCC that climate change prior to the 1960’s could not have been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Yet, pre-1960 instrumentally observed temperatures show many warming episodes, similar to the one since 1960, for example, from 1915 to 1950, and from 1850 to 1890. None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2,Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded what has been observed,The modelling community has openly acknowledged that the ability of existing models to simulate past climates is due to numerous arbitrary tuning adjustments,Observations show no statistically valid trends in flooding or drought, and no meaningful acceleration whatsoever of pre-existing long term sea level rise (about 6 inches per century) worldwide,Current carbon dioxide levels, around 400 parts per million are still very small compared to the averages over geological history, when thousands of parts per million prevailed, and when life flourished on land and in the oceans.Calls to limit carbon dioxide emissions are even less persuasive today than 25 years ago. Future research should focus on dispassionate, high-quality climate science, not on efforts to prop up an increasingly frayed narrative of “carbon pollution.” Until scientific research is unfettered from the constraints of the policy-driven UNFCCC, the research community will fail in its obligation to the public that pays the bills.

I hope these remarks help to explain why the over 300 original signers of the Petion (and additional scientists are joining them every day) have called for withdrawal from the UNFCCC.

Respectfully yours,



Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences

SUPPORTING SIGNERS:

Most of signers of the Petition, agree with my remarks above. In the limited time available to prepare the letter, it has been reviewed and approved by the following:

ABDUSSAMATOV, Habibullo Ismailovich: (Dr. sci., Phys. and Math. Sciences. ); Head of space research of the Sun sector at the Pulkovo observatory, head of the project The Lunar Observatory, St. Petersburg, (Russian Federation).

ALEXANDER, Ralph B.: (Ph.D. ,Physics, University of Oxford ); Former Associate Professor, Wayne State University, Detroit, author of Global Warming False Alarm (2012).

BASTARDI, Joseph: Chief Meteorologist, Weatherbell Analytics.

BRIGGS, William M.: (Ph.D., Statistics & Philosophy of Science); Author of Uncertainty: The Soul of Modeling, Probability & Statistics.

CLOUGH, Charles: (MS., Atmospheric Science); Founder and Retired Chief of the US Army Atmospheric Effects Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, Retired LtCol USAF (Res) Weather Officer.

DOIRON, Harold H.: (Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston 1970 ); Retired VP Engineering, InDyne, Inc.; Senior Manager, McDonnell Douglas Space Systems; and former NASA Apollo, Skylab and Space Shuttle Engineer Chairman, The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, composed of NASA manned space program retirees.

EASTERBROOK, Donald J.: (Ph.D.); Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University; former president of the Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Division of GSA, Associate Editor of the GSA Bulletin for 15 years, and many other professional activities. He published four books and eight professional papers in the past year.

FORBES, Vivian R.: (BSc., Applied Sciences); FAusIMM, FSIA, geologist, financial analyst and pasture manager, author of many articles on climate, pollution, economic development and hydrocarbons. (Australia).

HAPPER, William: (Ph.D., Physics); Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics (emeritus) Princeton University; Director of the Office of Energy Research, US Department of Energy, 1990-1993.

HAYDEN, Howard “Cork”: (PhD.); Professor Emeritus, University of Connecticut.

IDSO, Craig: (PhD, B.S., Geography, Arizona State University, M.S.,Agronomy, the University of Nebraska – Lincoln in 1996 ); Chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

LEGATES, David R.: (PhD, Climatology, University of Delaware); Certified Consulting Meterologist.

LUPO, Anthony: (Ph.D., Atmospheric Science); Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri.

MARKÓ, István E.: (PhD,Organic Chemistry, Catholic University of Louvain); professor and researcher of organic chemistry at the Catholic University of Louvain ( Belgium).

MOCKTON, Christopher: ; The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (United Kingdom).

MOORE, Patrick: (PhD., Ecology, University of British Columbia, Honorary Doctorate of Science, North Carolina State University); National Award for Nuclear Science and History (Einstein Society).

NICHOLS, Rodney W.: (AB Physics, Harvard); Science and Technology policy Executive Vice President emeritus Rockefeller University President and CEO emeritus, NY Academy of Sciences Co-Founder CO2 Coalition.

SINGER, Fred S.: (Ph.D., Physics, Princeton University, BA, Electrical Engineering, Ohio State University); professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. He directs the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), which he founded in 1990 and incorporated in 1992 after retiring from the University of Virginia.

SOON, Willie: (PhD); Independent Scientist.

SPENCER, Roy W.: (Ph.D., Meteorology ’81; M.S., Meteorology, ’79; B.S., Atmospheric & Oceanic Science, ’78); Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville; co-developer of method for satellite monitoring of global temperature; author of numerous papers on climate and satellite meteorology.

STEWARD, H. Leighton: (MS., Geology); Environmentalist, No. 1 New York Times Best Selling Author, Recipient numerous national environmental awards or directorships including the EPA, Louisiana Nature Conservancy, Audubon Nature Institute, the National Petroleum Council and the API. Former energy industry executive and chosen to represent industry on Presidential Missions under both Democratic and Republican Administrations.

MOTL, Lubos: (PhD., Physics ); former high-energy theoretical physics junior faculty at Harvard University (Czech Republic).

WYSMULLER, Thomas H.: (BA, Meteorology ); Ogunquit, Maine, NASA (Ret.); Chair, Water Day 2013, UNESCO IHE Water Research Institute, Delft, The Netherlands; Chair, Oceanographic Section, 2016 World Congress of Ocean, Qingdao China; NASA TRCS charter member.

ZYBACH, Bob: (PhD., Environmental Sciences, Oregon State University); orww.org, author of more than 100 popular articles and editorials regarding forest history, wildfire mitigation, reforestation planning, and Indian burning practices.

Original letter here: Lindzen Personal PAOC Explanation-final

wattsupwiththat.com

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.



To: Brumar89 who wrote (75323)3/10/2017 12:53:57 PM
From: Eric  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 86355
 
I have a wind turbine right next to my house.

About a hundred feet away.

I sleep like a baby....



To: Brumar89 who wrote (75323)3/10/2017 1:03:34 PM
From: Eric  Respond to of 86355
 
US Wind Industry Could Drive A Quarter-Million Jobs By 2020, Says Navigant

March 10th, 2017 by Joshua S Hill

A new analysis of the US wind energy sector by Navigant Consulting could see the sector drive up to 248,000 jobs and $85 billion in economic activity over the next four years.

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) highlighted the new analysis by Navigant Consulting on Thursday, alongside its own white paper which highlighted the economic benefits the wind sector already delivers to the US economy — specifically, that the US wind industry currently supports more than 100,000 jobs across all 50 states. Navigant Consulting believes that that number will only increase, with 248,000 total jobs by 2020, helping to deliver 35,000 megawatts (MW) of new wind power capacity through 2020.

And that’s with Donald Trump as president.



“Growing wind energy revitalizes America’s rural areas and Rust Belt manufacturing centers,” said Tom Kiernan, CEO of AWEA. “With over 100,000 jobs today, the industry is just getting started. This new analysis projects the industry could drive nearly a quarter million jobs by 2020, with $85 billion in economic activity over the next four years alone.”

“American ingenuity and hard work have driven the cost of wind down by two-thirds since 2009, propelling wind to contribute 30 percent of power plant capacity added over the last five years. The policy certainty provided by the 2015 Production Tax Credit phase down has allowed the industry to make long-term investments in the American workforce and manufacturing to further bring costs down.”

Navigant, based off its scenario of more than 200,000 jobs and an additional 35,000 MW of new wind capacity through 2020, highlighted the “significant impact” that the wind industry would have on the US economy. Specifically, investments in new wind turbines, construction and operations expenditures, and tax payments could support up to $24 billion in annual economic impact.



The Navigant analysis comes just days after the AWEA reported significant growth in the country’s wind energy industry throughout 2016, which supplied more than 5.5% of the country’s electricity throughout the year. Of specific import from the 2016 figures was the role that wind energy was playing in rural America — home to 99% of all wind turbines. This is important when we take into account Navigant’s investment predictions. Navigant calculates that wind activity will pay over $8 billion in taxes over the next four years, in addition to the tax revenue already being generated from existing wind projects — significantly important money-makers for rural America.

cleantechnica.com