Thursday, 2 August 2012

How Dangerous is Bull Dust?

US graph. Particles originate from a variety of mobile
and stationary sources (diesel trucks, woodstoves,
power plants, etc.)                               Source EPA.
Recently Karl Kruszelnicki issued a paper titled “How Dangerous is Rubber Dust” (Link)
Each time a tyre rotates, it loses a layer of rubber about a billionth of a metre thick. If you do some numbers, this works out to about four million million million carbon atoms lost with each rotation.
A busy road with 25,000 vehicles travelling on it each day will generate around nine kilograms of tyre dust per kilometre.
But there's another dark side to rubber dust — particles. The organic and inorganic chemicals are carried as, or on, particles. In general, the smaller the particles, the more deeply they can penetrate into your lungs. PM10 stands for particulate matter that is smaller than 10 microns in size.
Gordon Alderson, whose motto is

"Removing bricks, one by one, from the Climate Science Wall of Misinformation

has  written a commentary on Dr Karl's paper:-

Karl S. Kruszelnicki’s “How Dangerous is Rubber Dust” paper highlights a magnificent new political opportunity.
Margaret Thatcher’s speech to The Royal Society on 27 September 1988 is an object lesson in how to raise fear of a yet-to-be-proved scientific hypothesis and, perforce of oratory skill, convert that to an international cause celebre.
Politicians relish unproven fear because it attracts votes and that delivers power. The 4-stage process is: exaggerate the fear, promise to save voters from the fear, they vote for you in gratification, you gain power.
We can predict a grave speech on “the new greatest moral issue of our time” an election promise that “there will be no tyre wear tax under a government I lead” passing of a “Tyre Wear Tax”, massive grants for scientific research into tyre wear, establishment of the Kruszelnicki Tyre Wear Research Unit, peer reviewed papers on Cancer from Car-tyres (written and only reviewed by those involved in the cabal), serious calls for a return to horse-drawn carriages on steel rimmed wheels and a new IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Cancer from Car-tyres) whose purpose is to perpetuate the fear.
The originator / deliverer of the tyre wear strategy will be rewarded by recognition for their international leadership into (CC) Cancer from Car-tyres and residency at the Lodge. Why?  Because we are so grateful for being saved from the scourge of PM10 carbon dust emitted from the highways and byways of Australia.
The trick is to exit politics before ethical scientists discover that you conned the voters.

See also Dr Karl and Flat Earth (Link)

Climate change science is a load of hot air and warmists are wrong

Dr David Evans writing in the Age: (LINK)

The warmists are correct that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it causes warming, that CO2 levels have been rising, and that it has been warming.

Serious sceptics agree with all that, but point out that it does not prove that something else isn't causing most of the warming. By way of illustration, if the main cause of warming was actually Venusians with ray guns, then all those things would still be true.
We scientists can calculate how much warming results directly from an increase in CO2 levels.
We know how much CO2 levels and temperature have risen since pre-industrial times, but the warming directly due to CO2 is only a third of the observed warming. The theory assumes no other major influence on temperature changed, so the effect of the CO2 must have been amplified threefold, presumably by changes in the atmosphere due to humidity and clouds.
There is no observational evidence for this amplification, but it is nonetheless built into all the models. Sceptics point out that if the extra humidity simply forms extra clouds, then there would be no amplification.

Read More HERE

Climate Scientist testifies: More CO2 means more food for all

From Wikipedia:

John R. Christy is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) whose chief interests are satellite remote sensing of global climate and global climate change. He is best known, jointly with Roy Spencer, for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record.

John Christy has served as a Lead Author and Contributing Author of IPCC assessments, have been awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and in 2002 elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

John gave a witness testimony to the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Some extracts from his testimony: 

4. Widely publicized consensus reports by “thousands” of scientists are misrepresentative of climate science, containing overstated confidence in their assertions of high climate sensitivity. They rarely represent the range of scientific opinion that attends our relatively murky field of climate research. Funding resources are recommended for “Red Teams” of credentialed, independent investigators, who already study low climate sensitivity and the role of natural variability. Policymakers need to be aware of the full range of scientific views, especially when it appears that one-sided-science is the basis for promoting significant increases to the cost of energy for the citizens.
5. Atmospheric CO2 is food for plants which means it is food for people and animals. More CO2 generally means more food for all. Today, affordable carbon-based energy is a key component for lifting people out of crippling poverty. Rising CO2 emissions are, therefore, one indication of poverty-reduction which gives hope for those now living in a marginal existence without basic needs brought by electrification, transportation and industry. Additionally, modern, carbon-based energy reduces the need for deforestation and alleviates other environmental problems such as water and air pollution. Until affordable energy is developed from non-carbon sources, the world will continue to use carbon as the main energy source as it does today.

Full testimony PDF here: christy-testimony-2012 (H/t WUWT)

Man Made Global Warming movement dead, buried and cremated.

Statement of Senator James Inhofe to the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Statement of James M. Inhofe
Hearing: Full Committee hearing entitled, “Update on the Latest Climate Change Science and Local Adaptation Measures.”
Wednesday, August 1, 2012

I must say it feels like we're back to the good old days.  It may be hard to believe, but it was in February of 2009, during the height of the global warming alarmist movement, that this committee last held a hearing on global warming science. Back then we heard promises from the Obama administration of a clean energy revolution with green jobs propped up by billions in taxpayer dollars to companies like Solyndra. 

What came of all those promises?  The global warming movement has completely collapsed and cap-and-trade is dead and gone. 

I suspect a look back over the past three years will be a little painful for my friends on the other side. In 2009 with a Democratic President, and overwhelming Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate, global warming alarmists were on top of the world - they thought they would finally reach their goal of an international agreement that would eliminate fossil fuels. Yet the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill didn't happen. 

Of course, what drove the collapse of the global warming movement was that the science of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was finally exposed. For years I had warned that the United Nations was a political body, not a scientific body - and finally the mainstream media took notice:  

New York Times editorial: "Given the stakes, the IPCC cannot allow more missteps and, at the very least, must tighten procedures and make its deliberations more transparent. The panel's under fire for taking consulting fees from business interests..." (February 17, 2010) 

The Washington Post: "Recent revelations about flaws in that seminal IPCC report, ranging from typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing, are undermining confidence not only in the panel's work but also in projections about climate change. 

Newsweek: "Some of the IPCC's most-quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles..." 

UK Daily Telegraph on Climategate: "The worst scientific scandal of our generation." 

Just how unpopular is the global warming movement now? The Washington Post recently published a poll revealing that Americans no longer worry about global warming and one of the reasons is because they don't trust the scientists' motivations. 

The IPCC has even lost the trust of the left. Andrew Revkin of the New York Times recently called for IPCC chair Pachauri to make a choice between global warming activism and leading the IPCC.  They are also saying similar things about global warming alarmist James Hansen.  As David Roberts of Grist acknowledged, Hansen has "become so politicized that people tend to dismiss him." 

Just one look at this committee and we can see how bad things have gotten for the alarmists: today there are no federal witnesses here to testify about the grave dangers of global warming.  President Obama himself never dares to mention global warming and some on the left have noticed: Bill McKibben recently criticized the President for not attending the Rio + 20 sustainability conference noting that, "Unlike George H.W. Bush, who flew in for the first conclave, Barack Obama didn't even attend." 

It must be very hard for my friends on the left to watch the President who promised he would slow the rise of the oceans posing in front of pipelines in my home state of Oklahoma pretending to support oil and gas. 

I imagine they are trying to keep quiet because they know President Obama is still moving forward with his global warming agenda - he just doesn't want the American people to know about it.
Now what the American people don't know: President Obama is doing through his bureaucracy what he couldn't do legislatively.  He is spending billions of taxpayer dollars on his global warming agenda.  We've already identified $68 billion. 

Today we should have a fascinating debate.  I want to thank climatologist Dr. John Christy for appearing before the Committee to provide his insights. I am also looking forward to the testimony of Dr. Margo Thorning, a noted economist who will discuss the economic pain of the Obama EPA's current regulations. 

We've been through this now for the past 3 ½ years and the results are clear: President Obama's green energy agenda has been a disaster.  The time has come to put these tired, failed policies to rest and embrace the US energy boom so that we can put Americans back to work, turn this economy around, become totally energy independent from the Middle East, and ensure energy security for years to come.