The ineffectiveness of biofuels—ethanol and biodiesil—has been much in the news lately, with reports from the EPA, California's CARB and the EU's joint Research Council claiming that biofuels pollute more than the fossil fuels they are supposed to replace. Still, this has not prevented the biofuels industry from receiving big government subsidies. Now a new report discloses another reason to shun biofuels, one that has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with H2O. When the water use of biofuel feedstock crops is analyzed, the water footprint (WF) ranges from 1,400 to an astounding 20,000 gallons of water for each gallon of biofuel produced.
Coming on the heals of the EPA and CARB decisions, to include all production emissions when evaluating biofuels, a new study from the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology says that it may be better to burn crops than turn them into biofuels. The UN has reported that world food prices are rising due to competition with government subsidized biofuel programs. Combined with new concerns over nitrous oxide production from agricultural crops, this may signal the death of America's foolish foray into crop based ethanol.
Increased scrutiny of climate catastrophists' claims is leading to panic among the promoters of global warming hype. Rather than attempting to counter mounting evidence that global warming—at least as defined by the IPCC and its supporters—is not a valid scientific theory, a number of leading catastrophists have issued a public call to climate scientists. Their plea? Further dumbing down climate science by using a simplified “common climate language” to “advance the public's decision-making capacity.”
America, what's the UN doing now? All this hysteria about Global Warming; notice the green folks no longer use the term global warming. Uh-uh! The new-term is "Climate Change." Jian Liu, Chief Of The Division Of Enviornmental Policy Implementation's Climate Change Adaptation Unit Of The United Nations Enviornmental Program (How about that for a title, fellow tax payers?
In May, 2008, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) predicted that the North Pole could be ice free during last years melt season. The disappearing northern sea ice has been pointed to by global warming alarmists as visible proof that the Earth was doing a melt down. Today, however, the NSIDC announced that they have been the victims of “sensor drift” that caused them to underestimate the Arctic ice extent by as much as 500,000 square kilometers. It turns out that the demise of the arctic ice was greatly exaggerated.
An interview with Allen Simmons, co-author of The Resilient Earth, appears in the latest edition of the Rockport Pilot. Quoting Simmons, “We are not challenging weekly weather models, nor those which predict the paths of hurricanes. We are challenging computer models which predict Earth's temperature 100 years in the future. So the main purpose of the book was to uncover the who, how and why these long-range predictions of Earth's temperature were being made.”
One of the catastrophic results of global warming always cited by climate change alarmists is the melting of the ice sheets covering Greenland. Some even speculated that global warming had pushed Greenland past a “tipping point” into a scary new regime of wildly heightened ice loss and rapidly rising in sea levels. Now, from the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, comes word that Greenland's Ice Armageddon has been called off.
During his weekly radio address on December 20th, President-elect Obama announced his top Science and Technology advisors. The announcement included the nomination of Harvard professor Dr. John Holdren as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). The nomination of Dr. Holdren restores the status of the science adviser to Assistant to the President and is the earliest that any President or President-Elect has announced his choice for science adviser.
Listening to the verbal posturing by some eco-activists and like minded politicians might give one the impression that, with the recent sharp drop in world oil prices, all pressure to accelerate domestic oil production has abated. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Once again the counter argument is made by the most unlikely of sources, the OEDC IEA—an organization that, along with the UN IPCC, helped serve as ground zero for the global warming hysteria outbreak of recent times.