iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-28--Corona Crisis: Federation Of German Industry Calls On EU To Review Unilateral 2030 Climate Target

In a statement , Holger Lösch , deputy general manager of the Federation of German Industries ( BDI ) , comments on the 11th Petersberg Climate Dialogue : It is right and important that the Petersberg Climate Dialogue deals extensively with the topic of climate finance .
The restart of the global economy after the Corona crisis needs globally comparable ambitions in climate protection .
The political tendencies against cooperative and multilateral action must not increase any further .
German industry is sticking to the EU ’ s 2050 goal of climate neutrality .
The interim climate goals for 2030 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ test due to the changed economic situation .
State budgets , company balance sheets and private households will have considerably less scope for investments of all kinds in the future .
Therefore , the EU Green Deal must become a Smart Deal , in which growth , employment and ambitious climate protection goals are linked as efficiently as possible through an intelligent investment and relief package .
Building renovation , digitalization , energy efficiency , circular economy and , in particular , hydrogen and CO2-neutral fuels could be fields in which there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the intelligent use of the remaining capital .
“

In a statement, Holger Lösch, deputy general manager of the Federation of German Industries (BDI), comments on the 11th Petersberg Climate Dialogue:
It is right and important that the Petersberg Climate Dialogue deals extensively with the topic of climate finance. The restart of the global economy after the Corona crisis needs globally comparable ambitions in climate protection. The political tendencies against cooperative and multilateral action must not increase any further.
German industry is sticking to the EU’s 2050 goal of climate neutrality. The interim climate goals for 2030 urgently need to be put to the test due to the changed economic situation.
State budgets, company balance sheets and private households will have considerably less scope for investments of all kinds in the future. Therefore, the EU Green Deal must become a Smart Deal, in which growth, employment and ambitious climate protection goals are linked as efficiently as possible through an intelligent investment and relief package.
Building renovation, digitalization, energy efficiency, circular economy and, in particular, hydrogen and CO2-neutral fuels could be fields in which there is a good chance of sustainable growth with the intelligent use of the remaining capital. “


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-28--Nuclear’s New Age: Americans Lead Race to Build Small Modular Plants

Small modular nuclear reactors have been powering submarines and ships for generations .
Now , enterprising Americans are seeking to @ @ @ @ @ order to tap an inexhaustible and affordable supply of electricity – available 24 x 7 @ @ @ @ @ time-of-day .
With a few rare exceptions , the climate cult hates the concept of @ @ @ @

Small modular nuclear reactors have been powering submarines and ships for generations. Now, enterprising Americans are seeking to bring them onshore, in order to tap an inexhaustible and affordable supply of electricity – available 24 x 7, whatever the weather or time-of-day. With a few rare exceptions, the climate cult hates the concept of nuclear […]
via STOP THESE THINGS
https://ift.tt/2y3iKcU
April 28, 2020 at 02:31AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-28--IT’S PLASTIC THAT IS PROTECTING US FROM CORONAVIRUS

This is not something that is being pointed out by the media , but the truth is that our medical @ @ @ @ @ more than a billion items ) of protective clothing , the vast bulk of this @ @ @ @ @ .
As I have always maintained there is nothing wrong with using plastic as long @ @ @ @ @ safely by incineration .
There is an excellent article by Dominic Lawson in the Sunday @ @ @ @ @ this subject , see this link ( £ )

This is not something that is being pointed out by the media, but the truth is that our medical workers require massive amounts (more than a billion items) of protective clothing, the vast bulk of this is from single use plastic. As I have always maintained there is nothing wrong with using plastic as long as it is disposed of safely by incineration.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-28--Robert Bryce: Guilty as Charged (DeSmog hit piece boomerangs)

From time to time , MasterResource has posted on the profiles by DeSmog Blog : climatologist John Christy , Reaching America ’ s Derrick Hollie , and myself .
Strangely , the targets of DeSmog can agree with the profiles in a guilty-as-charged way .
The litmus test seems to be that if you do not agree with climate alarmism and forced energy transformation , you are ipso facto wrong .
This is religion , not scholarship ; one can not assume what is under debate .
DeSmogBlog is a Left-funded website purporting to expose proponents of consumer-chosen , taxpayer-neutral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defines its mission as “ clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate science.
” DeSmog believes in its own righteosness .
Executive editor Brendan DeMelle recently stated : To which the climate realists can retort : Here is DeSmog ’ s entry on Robert Bryce , slightly excerpted with documentation removed , which needs to be updated to include his latest book , A Question of Power : Electricity and the Wealth of Nations ( Public Affairs : 2020 ) , which Bill Peacock reviewed at our site last week .
Robert Bryce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Austin , Texas .
He has regularly been cited as an “ expert ” on energy issues in the media , but has been under increased scrutiny after writing numerous articles in media outlets that did not disclose his ties to the fossil fuel industry .
Many of Bryce ’ s articles have been on the energy business .
He spent 12 years writing for The Austin Chronicle .
From 2006 to September 2010 he worked as the managing editor of the online publication Energy Tribune .
From October 2007 to February @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute for Energy Research ( IER ) .
In April , 2010 he joined the Manhattan Institute as a senior fellow in its Center for Energy Policy and the Environment .
The Manhattan Institute is a policy think tank that has received significant funding from both ExxonMobil and Koch Industries .
According to media transparency , the Manhattan Institute has been known to “ obscure ” science supporting man-made climate change .
Bryce has been unwilling to answer questions about the funding the Manhattan Institute receives from the fossil fuel industry .
Writing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replacing gasoline-powered automobiles with electric vehicles ( EV ) was an impossible task : Bryce published an op-ed for RealClear Energy suggesting that the 100 % renewable energy goals pursued by various states and municipalities would ultimately be derailed through a combination of environmental concerns and the drawdown of federal subsidies .
Citing opposition by environmental groups to large-scale wind power development due to potential threats to wildlife habitats , Bryce implied that the shift to green technologies was a lost cause : Bryce authored a Manhattan Institute report accusing New York governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Environmental Conservation of impeding the construction of new natural gas pipelines , forcing consumers to rely on more expensive heating oil .
The governor and DEC claimed that the pipelines in question would negatively impact area water quality , while Bryce alleged purely political motives : In a commentary for the New York Post , Bryce criticized the state ’ s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act with its requirement to reduce carbon emissions by 85 % by 2050 .
Comparing this goal to the United Kingdom ’ s mandate that all vehicles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this would lead to greater dependency on China for rare earth minerals , increased electricity costs , and increased emissions from the ramped-up production of electric vehicles .
Writing for the National Review , Bryce took aim at the “ Green New Deal ” being proposed by some members of the 2019 U.S. Congress , and labeled efforts to transition the nation ’ s power supply to renewables by a date certain as ‘ radical ’ and the ‘ antithesis of green.
’ Bryce appeared to base his argument on the potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existing sources of fossil fuels , ignoring other forms of renewable energy and those yet to be developed and deployed .
Painting a picture of wind turbines covering a landmass twice the size of California , Bryce said : Bryce released a publication with the Manhattan Institute titled “ Ideas for the New Administration.
” According to the abstract , “ U.S .
energy policy needs a rethink .
More specifically , it ’ s time to emphasize nuclear power and de-emphasize government mandates and high-cost , inefficient subsidies to other energy sources.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress and the new Trump administration can take ” including expanding nuclear , repealing the Renewable Fuel Standard ( RFS ) , and repealing the tax credit for electric vehicles .
The argument Bryce cites for repealing the tax credit for electric vehicles echoes that made by a Koch-funded campaign to combat the EV credit , claiming that it only benefits the rich : Robert Bryce published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled “ An Ill Wind : Open Season on Bald Eagles ” criticizing new regulations put in place by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( FWS ) governing the accidental harming of bald and golden eagles .
According to Bryce , the FWS is “ trying to make it easier for the wind industry to kill ” eagles .
On May 6 , the blog Daily Kos predicted Bryce ’ s piece , saying Bryce and the Journal would likely contribute a “ fresh round of fossil fuel-penned pieces crying crocodile tears for birds ” shortly after the FWS regulations were announced : Robert Bryce authored a Manhattan Institute report titled “ What Happens to an Economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ( PDF ) .
Bonner R. Cohen promoted the new study at the Heartland Institute .
He writes that policies to combat climate change in Europe “ have led to soaring electricity costs for residential and commercial customers , leading the authors to recommend the United States reject similar policies.
” Robert Bryce published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal “ attacking [ Bernie ] Sanders ’ renewable energy plan , ” reports Media Matters .
In the op-ed , Bryce claimed that Sanders “ better check with his Vermont constituents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He adds , “ Nowhere is the backlash [ against wind energy ] stronger than in Mr. Sanders ’ s state.
” According to Media Matters , Bryce ’ s statement is not accurate : “ despite the presence of a vocal minority who oppose large-scale wind projects , support for wind energy development is actually very strong in the Green Mountain State.
” They cite a 2014 poll by Fairbank , Maslin , Maulin , Metz & Associates for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group ( VPIRG ) that found 71 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state ’ s ridgelines , while only 23 percent oppose wind energy development .
June 22 , 2015 Robert Bryce wrote a column in the National Review titled “ The Poor Need More Energy : What BP Knows and Pope Francis Doesn ’ t , ” where he maintained that the best , low-cost energy source for developing countries is coal .
According to Bryce , “ [ Pope Francis ’ s ] new encyclical on climate change , Laudato Si ’ ( Be praised ) , shows a shallow understanding of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of how energy consumption is soaring among the people he claims to care most about : the poor.
” “ But if developing countries are going to prepare for possible changes in the climate , they will have to get richer so they can afford to deal with any calamities that may occur .
And how will they get richer ?
The answer is obvious : by consuming more energy .
And for countries throughout the developing world , the lowest-cost energy is still coal , ” Bryce writes .
Robert Bryce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Environment and Public Works where he contends that “ federally subsidized efforts that are being undertaken to , in theory , address climate change , are damaging America ’ s wildlife.
” An October 2011 Petition submitted by the Checks and Balances Project complained about Bryce , pointing to “ a disturbing trend of special interests surreptitiously funding “ experts ” to push industry talking points in the nation ’ s major media outlets.
” DeSmogBlog reported on this issue here , and here .
According to the letter , “ pundits like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their views , but we believe media outlets have the responsibility to inform their readers of opinion writers ’ true ties and conflicts of interest.
” It appears that an Op-Ed by Bryce titled “ the Gas is Greener ” which criticizes renewable energy including wind projects and reports to expose hidden costs and “ deep contradictions ” in the “ renewable energy movement.
” Signatories asked the New York Times to set the standard by revealing the ties of these “ experts ” and ensuring readers get the full story .
New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , dismissing the petition ’ s request and saying that “ I don ’ t think Mr. Bryce is masquerading as anything : experts generally have a point of view .
And the Manhattan Institute ’ s dependence on this category of funding is slight — about 2.5 percent of its budget over the past 10 years .
But the issue of authorial transparency is an important one , albeit one that isn ’ t always simple.
” According to SourceWatch , Bryce was a featured speaker at the 2011 American Legislative Exchange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a workshop titled “ Unconventional Revolution : How Technological Advancements Have Transformed Energy Production in the United States.
” The panel advocated the process of fracking for reaching unconventional gas reserves .
Bryce has also published articles in favour of fracking and in one example where he presents the often-repeated industry claim that fracking poses “ minimal risk ” to groundwater .
He stressed that New York “ can ’ t afford to be left behind in the shale revolution.
” In a June 13 , 2011 piece published in the Wall Street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revolution now underway is the best news for North American energy since the discovery of the East Texas Field in 1930.
” Bryce wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times revealing his opposition to the implementation of carbon capture technology .
He was particularly critical of a senate energy bill introduced by John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman which would include incentives of $ 2 billion per year for carbon capture and sequestration .
Bryce wrote “ That ’ s a lot of money for a technology whose adoption faces three potentially insurmountable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of power plants ; pipeline capacity to move the newly captured carbon dioxide is woefully insufficient ; and the volume of waste material is staggering .
Lawmakers should stop perpetuating the hope that the technology can help make huge cuts in the United States ’ carbon dioxide emissions.
” He also predicted public opposition to carbon dioxide sequestration areas , writing how “ few landowners are eager to have pipelines built across their property .
And because of the possibility of deadly leaks , few people will to want to live near a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This leads to the obvious question : which members of the House and Senate are going to volunteer their states to be dumping grounds for all that carbon dioxide ?
” Wrote an article titled “ Let Exxon Run the Energy Dept.
” in The Daily Beast .
The article is strongly critical of the Obama Administration which he claims is “ working to marginalize America ’ s single biggest sector , the sliver of the economy that produces our most essential commodities : gasoline , diesel fuel , jet fuel , coal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country ’ s electricity ) and natural gas.
” Bryce writes “ the U.S. has never had a secretary of Energy who has actually drilled an oil well , built a nuclear power plant , or dug coal out of the ground .
Indeed , actual experience in the energy business appears to be grounds for disqualification .
This is stunning.
” In conclusion , Bryce suggests that maybe we should include more people representing the energy industry in government : “ Maybe—just maybe—those energy companies aren ’ t so villainous after all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought : Maybe—just maybe—we should have a few people in government who really understand how the energy business works.
” • Manhattan Institute for Policy Research — Senior Fellow with the Center for Energy Policy and the Environment .
Many of Robert Bryce ’ s recent articles can be viewed at RobertBryce.com .
In 2011 , Media Matters noted 39 times that Robert Bryce appeared in the media where sources failed to mention his ties to the oil industry… .

It’s time to move the debate past the dogmatic view that carbon dioxide is evil and toward a world view that accepts the need for energy that is cheap, abundant and reliable. (Robert Bryce) “Despite the endless hype about electric cars, vehicles that plug into the grid remain a niche product that is sold almost exclusively to the affluent…. Lower-income taxpayers should not be subsidizing wealthy motorists who buy EVs. (Robert Bryce)
From time to time, MasterResource has posted on the profiles by DeSmog Blog: climatologist John Christy, Reaching America’s Derrick Hollie, and myself. Strangely, the targets of DeSmog can agree with the profiles in a guilty-as-charged way. The litmus test seems to be that if you do not agree with climate alarmism and forced energy transformation, you are ipso facto wrong. This is religion, not scholarship; one cannot assume what is under debate.
DeSmogBlog is a Left-funded website purporting to expose proponents of consumer-chosen, taxpayer-neutral, dense, reliable energies. DeSmog defines its mission as “clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate science.”
DeSmog believes in its own righteosness. Executive editor Brendan DeMelle recently stated:
My motivation has always been that I don’t like liars, and I don’t like bullies. And climate denial is a feast for both—those who enjoy confusing and distorting reality, and those who love bullying people, especially scientists. It’s just gross, and it motivates me to fight them and expose them and put them on record. I’d like them to be seen forever to have been on the wrong side of history.
To which the climate realists can retort:
We are on the right side of history. Climate alarmism as a pretext for governments reorganizing society is an assault on personal and economic liberties and is anti-human in the extreme.
Here is DeSmog’s entry on Robert Bryce, slightly excerpted with documentation removed, which needs to be updated to include his latest book, A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations (Public Affairs: 2020), which Bill Peacock reviewed at our site last week.
Background
Robert Bryce is an American author and journalist based in Austin, Texas. He has regularly been cited as an “expert” on energy issues in the media, but has been under increased scrutiny after writing numerous articles in media outlets that did not disclose his ties to the fossil fuel industry.
Many of Bryce’s articles have been on the energy business. He spent 12 years writing for The Austin Chronicle. From 2006 to September 2010 he worked as the managing editor of the online publication Energy Tribune.
From October 2007 to February 2008 he was a fellow at the Institute for Energy Research (IER). In April, 2010 he joined the Manhattan Institute as a senior fellow in its Center for Energy Policy and the Environment.
The Manhattan Institute is a policy think tank that has received significant funding from both ExxonMobil and Koch Industries. According to media transparency, the Manhattan Institute has been known to “obscure” science supporting man-made climate change.
Bryce has been unwilling to answer questions about the funding the Manhattan Institute receives from the fossil fuel industry.
Stance on Climate Change
“The science is not settled, not by a long shot. […] If serious scientists can question Einstein’s theory of relativity, then there must be room for debate about the workings and complexities of the Earth’s atmosphere. Furthermore, even if we accept that carbon dioxide is bad, it’s not clear exactly what we should do about it.” “On the science of global climate change, I’m an agnostic. I’ve seen Al Gore’s movie, and I’ve read reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I’ve also listened to the ‘skeptics.’ I don’t know who’s right.”
Key Quotes
“[W]e should be cheering the news that coal use is rising. For it means that more people are escaping the darkness and joining the modern world.” ”[…] the job [at the Manhattan Institute] gives me a platform where I can focus on the themes that I explored in both Gusher of Lies and Power Hungry: that the myths about “green” energy are largely just that, myths; that hydrocarbons are here to stay; and that if we are going to pursue the best “no regrets” policy with regard to energy, then we should be avidly promoting natural gas and nuclear energy.”
“It’s time to move the debate past the dogmatic view that carbon dioxide is evil and toward a world view that accepts the need for energy that is cheap, abundant and reliable.”
Key Deeds
September 11, 2019
Writing for The Hill, Bryce declared that replacing gasoline-powered automobiles with electric vehicles (EV) was an impossible task:
“the hard truth is that decarbonizing the transportation sector will be extremely difficult and the process will take decades, not years. Battery-powered vehicles lost the race with oil-fueled ones back when Thomas Edison was still alive.”
August 16, 2019
Bryce published an op-ed for RealClear Energy suggesting that the 100% renewable energy goals pursued by various states and municipalities would ultimately be derailed through a combination of environmental concerns and the drawdown of federal subsidies.
Citing opposition by environmental groups to large-scale wind power development due to potential threats to wildlife habitats, Bryce implied that the shift to green technologies was a lost cause:
“While there’s no doubt that renewable energy is politically popular, there’s also no doubt that wind energy projects – both onshore and offshore – are facing increasing opposition and that, in turn, could cause the all-renewable goals to be missed.”
June 25, 2019
Bryce authored a Manhattan Institute report accusing New York governor Andrew Cuomo and the state Department of Environmental Conservation of impeding the construction of new natural gas pipelines, forcing consumers to rely on more expensive heating oil.
The governor and DEC claimed that the pipelines in question would negatively impact area water quality, while Bryce alleged purely political motives:
“Liberal Democratic politicians in New York love to talk about climate change and what it will do to minority communities, but these climate politics will be felt by ratepayers.”
June 20, 2019
In a commentary for the New York Post, Bryce criticized the state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act with its requirement to reduce carbon emissions by 85% by 2050.
Comparing this goal to the United Kingdom’s mandate that all vehicles be electric by 2050, Bryce suggested that this would lead to greater dependency on China for rare earth minerals, increased electricity costs, and increased emissions from the ramped-up production of electric vehicles.
“In other words, regardless of lawmakers’ good intentions, there’s still no such thing as a free lunch — in the energy sector or anywhere else,” Bryce concluded.
January 9, 2019
Writing for the National Review, Bryce took aim at the “Green New Deal” being proposed by some members of the 2019 U.S. Congress, and labeled efforts to transition the nation’s power supply to renewables by a date certain as ‘radical’ and the ‘antithesis of green.’
Bryce appeared to base his argument on the potential for wind energy alone to replace all existing sources of fossil fuels, ignoring other forms of renewable energy and those yet to be developed and deployed.
Painting a picture of wind turbines covering a landmass twice the size of California, Bryce said:
“…there is one unassailable fact about the Green New Deal: It is not green. Indeed, the entire notion of an all-renewable-energy system is the antithesis of environmental protection and scenic conservation.”
December 14, 2016
Bryce released a publication with the Manhattan Institute titled “Ideas for the New Administration.” According to the abstract, “U.S. energy policy needs a rethink. More specifically, it’s time to emphasize nuclear power and de-emphasize government mandates and high-cost, inefficient subsidies to other energy sources.”
Bryce recommends “three steps that Congress and the new Trump administration can take” including expanding nuclear, repealing the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), and repealing the tax credit for electric vehicles.
The argument Bryce cites for repealing the tax credit for electric vehicles echoes that made by a Koch-funded campaign to combat the EV credit, claiming that it only benefits the rich:
“Despite the endless hype about electric cars, vehicles that plug into the grid remain a niche product that is sold almost exclusively to the affluent,” Bryce wrote in the report, concluding that “ Lower-income taxpayers should not be subsidizing wealthy motorists who buy EVs.”
May 15, 2016
Robert Bryce published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled “An Ill Wind: Open Season on Bald Eagles” criticizing new regulations put in place by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) governing the accidental harming of bald and golden eagles. According to Bryce, the FWS is “trying to make it easier for the wind industry to kill” eagles.
On May 6, the blog Daily Kos predicted Bryce’s piece, saying Bryce and the Journal would likely contribute a “fresh round of fossil fuel-penned pieces crying crocodile tears for birds” shortly after the FWS regulations were announced:
“Bryce wrote op-eds attacking wind power in February, October and November 2013, which are all similar to one he wrote in 2009, and just like what he wrote in 2015. Since he already attacked wind power back in February of this year, one might think the WSJ editors wouldn’t want to go back to him for essentially a rerun of the same op-ed. But the WSJ has published over twenty of his pieces since 2009, all of which are either explicitly anti-wind or pro-fossil fuels,” Daily Kos writes.
Media Matters notes that Bryce’s Op-Ed piece is “misleading”:
“Bryce complained that the new rules would allow wind energy producers to kill or injure up to 4,200 eagles per year and hyped data showing that wind turbines were responsible for about 573,000 total bird deaths (not just eagles) in 2012. But as the Daily Kos piece explained, it is misleading to cite these figures without explaining that wind turbines are responsible for only ‘about 3 percent of human-caused eagle deaths’ and that other factors – including the oil and gas industry and climate change – are a much greater threat to birds than wind energy.”
May 4, 2016
Robert Bryce authored a Manhattan Institute report titled “What Happens to an Economy When Forced to Use Renewable Energy?” (PDF).
Bonner R. Cohen promoted the new study at the Heartland Institute. He writes that policies to combat climate change in Europe “have led to soaring electricity costs for residential and commercial customers, leading the authors to recommend the United States reject similar policies.”
“To avoid the kinds of results seen in Europe, U.S. policymakers at the federal and state levels should be required to do rigorous cost-benefit analyses before imposing renewable-energy mandates,” Robert Bryce said. “U.S. policymakers must also consider the impact higher energy costs will have on overall employment and industrial competitiveness.”
February 7, 2016
Robert Bryce published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal “attacking [Bernie] Sanders’ renewable energy plan,” reports Media Matters.
In the op-ed, Bryce claimed that Sanders “better check with his Vermont constituents about the popularity of wind energy.” He adds, “Nowhere is the backlash [against wind energy] stronger than in Mr. Sanders’s state.”
According to Media Matters, Bryce’s statement is not accurate: “despite the presence of a vocal minority who oppose large-scale wind projects, support for wind energy development is actually very strong in the Green Mountain State.” They cite a 2014 poll by Fairbank, Maslin, Maulin, Metz & Associates for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) that found 71 percent of Vermonters support building wind turbines along the state’s ridgelines, while only 23 percent oppose wind energy development.
June 22, 2015 Robert Bryce wrote a column in the National Review titled “The Poor Need More Energy: What BP Knows and Pope Francis Doesn’t,” where he maintained that the best, low-cost energy source for developing countries is coal. According to Bryce, “[Pope Francis’s] new encyclical on climate change, Laudato Si’ (Be praised), shows a shallow understanding of global energy use and, in particular, of how energy consumption is soaring among the people he claims to care most about: the poor.” “But if developing countries are going to prepare for possible changes in the climate, they will have to get richer so they can afford to deal with any calamities that may occur. And how will they get richer? The answer is obvious: by consuming more energy. And for countries throughout the developing world, the lowest-cost energy is still coal,” Bryce writes.
February 25, 2014
Robert Bryce testified before the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works where he contends that “federally subsidized efforts that are being undertaken to, in theory, address climate change, are damaging America’s wildlife.”
Bryce focused his attacks the wind industry:
“Given the studies already done on wind energy’s deleterious impact on wildlife, combined with the ‘energy sprawl’ that will come with the industry’s continuing expansion, it is virtually certain that as the wind sector adds more turbines, more federally protected wildlife – including more bald eagles, an animal that has been on the Great Seal of the United States since 1782 – will be killed.[xl] And thanks to the production tax credit, taxpayers will be subsidizing the slaughter. The question at hand is obvious: why are policymakers implementing an energy policy that is a known killer of wildlife in exchange for what are infinitesimally small reductions in carbon dioxide emissions?”
October, 2011
An October 2011 Petition submitted by the Checks and Balances Project complained about Bryce, pointing to “a disturbing trend of special interests surreptitiously funding “experts” to push industry talking points in the nation’s major media outlets.”
DeSmogBlog reported on this issue here, and here.
According to the letter, “pundits like Mr. Bryce have the right to share their views, but we believe media outlets have the responsibility to inform their readers of opinion writers’ true ties and conflicts of interest.”
It appears that an Op-Ed by Bryce titled “the Gas is Greener” which criticizes renewable energy including wind projects and reports to expose hidden costs and “deep contradictions” in the “renewable energy movement.”
Signatories asked the New York Times to set the standard by revealing the ties of these “experts” and ensuring readers get the full story.
New York Times editor Arthur S. Brisbane responded, dismissing the petition’s request and saying that “I don’t think Mr. Bryce is masquerading as anything: experts generally have a point of view. And the Manhattan Institute’s dependence on this category of funding is slight — about 2.5 percent of its budget over the past 10 years. But the issue of authorial transparency is an important one, albeit one that isn’t always simple.”
August 11, 2011
According to SourceWatch, Bryce was a featured speaker at the 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Annual Meeting at a workshop titled “Unconventional Revolution: How Technological Advancements Have Transformed Energy Production in the United States.”
The panel advocated the process of fracking for reaching unconventional gas reserves. Bryce has also published articles in favour of fracking and in one example where he presents the often-repeated industry claim that fracking poses “minimal risk” to groundwater. He stressed that New York “can’t afford to be left behind in the shale revolution.”
In a June 13, 2011 piece published in the Wall Street Journal he wrote that the “shale revolution now underway is the best news for North American energy since the discovery of the East Texas Field in 1930.”
May 12, 2010
Bryce wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times revealing his opposition to the implementation of carbon capture technology.
He was particularly critical of a senate energy bill introduced by John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman which would include incentives of $2 billion per year for carbon capture and sequestration.
Bryce wrote “That’s a lot of money for a technology whose adoption faces three potentially insurmountable hurdles: it greatly reduces the output of power plants; pipeline capacity to move the newly captured carbon dioxide is woefully insufficient; and the volume of waste material is staggering. Lawmakers should stop perpetuating the hope that the technology can help make huge cuts in the United States’ carbon dioxide emissions.”
He also predicted public opposition to carbon dioxide sequestration areas, writing how “few landowners are eager to have pipelines built across their property. And because of the possibility of deadly leaks, few people will to want to live near a pipeline or an underground storage cavern. This leads to the obvious question: which members of the House and Senate are going to volunteer their states to be dumping grounds for all that carbon dioxide?”
April 8, 2009
Wrote an article titled “Let Exxon Run the Energy Dept.” in The Daily Beast. The article is strongly critical of the Obama Administration which he claims is “working to marginalize America’s single biggest sector, the sliver of the economy that produces our most essential commodities: gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, coal (which provides about half of the country’s electricity) and natural gas.”
Bryce writes “the U.S. has never had a secretary of Energy who has actually drilled an oil well, built a nuclear power plant, or dug coal out of the ground. Indeed, actual experience in the energy business appears to be grounds for disqualification. This is stunning.”
In conclusion, Bryce suggests that maybe we should include more people representing the energy industry in government: “Maybe—just maybe—those energy companies aren’t so villainous after all. And here’s another wacky thought: Maybe—just maybe—we should have a few people in government who really understand how the energy business works.”
Affiliations
Publications
Many of Robert Bryce’s recent articles can be viewed at RobertBryce.com. In 2011, Media Matters noted 39 times that Robert Bryce appeared in the media where sources failed to mention his ties to the oil industry….


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-28--Covid-19: That time Aussie Virologists Accidentally Created an Unstoppable Mouse Pathogen

As speculation mounts about exactly what Chinese virologists were doing in that sinister Wuhan laboratory , it might be a good time to ask , what is the difference between legitimate virology research and nasty secret military projects ?
The answer is less than you might think .
Australian scientists have accidentally created a virus that kills mice by crippling their immune systems , and warn that the technique may threaten to produce deadlier forms of human viruses and new kinds of biological weapons .
The Australian scientists inserted into the mousepox virus a mouse gene that controls the making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ starring role in the immune system ’ s responses to foreign invaders .
The aim was to enhance the making of interleukin-4 and thus the immune response so that even mice eggs would be rejected as foreign , blocking mouse reproduction .
But the female mice instead died , as did many of those vaccinated to resist mousepox .
The scientists say the designer virus unexpectedly crippled the immune system to such an extent that the microbe reproduced wildly , killing most of the mice and making the rest permanently disabled .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used simply because it was well studied and convenient .
If successful , the experiment would have progressed to inserting the interleukin-4 gene into a benign microbe of rodents , the murine cytomegalo virus .
The bodies of people , like those of mice , use interleukin-4 to control immune responses .
Its signals are one of the main ways biological reactions to infection are orchestrated .
That similarity is one reason the new finding worries experts .
It is possible Wuhan scientists were doing something naughty .
Ill advised Chinese resistance to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspicion .
But the theory that Covid-19 is a biological warfare virus is weak .
A serious attempt to create a biological warfare virus should have included public knowledge enhancements like the lethal interleukin-4 hack , and who knows what other less well known immune system hacks .
A real biological warfare virus , with minimal effort , would have been far worse than Covid-19 .
One thing we do know is there was a Chinese study which claimed that isolation procedures at the Wuhan laboratory were deficient .
That alone is justification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worker walked out of the lab one night , carrying a bat virus which had somehow managed to infect a human .
We have all see examples of what appeared at first to be malice , which on investigation turned out to be mindless incompetence .

Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
As speculation mounts about exactly what Chinese virologists were doing in that sinister Wuhan laboratory, it might be a good time to ask, what is the difference between legitimate virology research and nasty secret military projects? The answer is less than you might think.
Australians Create a Deadly Mouse Virus By William J. Broad
Jan. 23, 2001 Australian scientists have accidentally created a virus that kills mice by crippling their immune systems, and warn that the technique may threaten to produce deadlier forms of human viruses and new kinds of biological weapons. … The Australian scientists inserted into the mousepox virus a mouse gene that controls the making of interleukin-4, chemical that plays a starring role in the immune system’s responses to foreign invaders. The aim was to enhance the making of interleukin-4 and thus the immune response so that even mice eggs would be rejected as foreign, blocking mouse reproduction. But the female mice instead died, as did many of those vaccinated to resist mousepox. The scientists say the designer virus unexpectedly crippled the immune system to such an extent that the microbe reproduced wildly, killing most of the mice and making the rest permanently disabled. The mousepox virus, they added, was used simply because it was well studied and convenient. If successful, the experiment would have progressed to inserting the interleukin-4 gene into a benign microbe of rodents, the murine cytomegalo virus. The bodies of people, like those of mice, use interleukin-4 to control immune responses. Its signals are one of the main ways biological reactions to infection are orchestrated. That similarity is one reason the new finding worries experts. Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/23/world/australians-create-a-deadly-mouse-virus.html
It is possible Wuhan scientists were doing something naughty. Ill advised Chinese resistance to open investigation is fanning the flames of suspicion.
But the theory that Covid-19 is a biological warfare virus is weak. A serious attempt to create a biological warfare virus should have included public knowledge enhancements like the lethal interleukin-4 hack, and who knows what other less well known immune system hacks. A real biological warfare virus, with minimal effort, would have been far worse than Covid-19.
One thing we do know is there was a Chinese study which claimed that isolation procedures at the Wuhan laboratory were deficient. That alone is justification for further investigation – likely some careless worker walked out of the lab one night, carrying a bat virus which had somehow managed to infect a human.
We have all see examples of what appeared at first to be malice, which on investigation turned out to be mindless incompetence.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-28--Coronavirus shutdown forces research project to miss critical start of Arctic ice melt

The worldwide coronavirus lockdown has meant that the MOSAiC research project , which deliberately froze the icebreaker Polarstern into the Arctic Sea ice last fall , will miss taking scientific measurements during several critical weeks of the melt season ( one of the main reasons for the project ) .
According to a report in the High North News ( 28 April 2020 ) , at 27 April the Polarstern was between Svalbard and the North Pole ( map above ) .
In mid-May , the ship will break out of the ice and proceed south to waters off Svalbard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) to meet up with two German icebreakers for a high-seas exchange of crew and restock provisions , the only option available after the coronovirus lockdown in Svalbard meant the original plans had to be scuttled .
And while waiting for the upcoming research upheaval and breaking free of the ice , the crew of the Polarstern recently reported a visit from a polar bear wandering the ice hunting for seals .
From a report in NATURE ( 24 April 2020 , see image above ) , ” Coronavirus shutdown forces research ship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( my bold ) : When scientists were planning MOSAiC — an epic research expedition that would remain trapped in Arctic sea ice for one year — they considered the North Pole ’ s hazards .
They worried about hypothermia , isolation , crushing ice and polar bears .
They had dozens of contingency plans .
But no one anticipated a pandemic .
… “ The idea of leaving the camp and floe was certainly not something we would have considered in the original rotation plan , ” Fong says .
“ But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I think it ’ s an important compromise that recognizes that the human dimension to the work we do is very , very important.
” The pandemic also means coordinators are using meticulous precautions to ensure that no one carries the virus to the ship .
The next rotation of scientists will arrive in Hamburg , Germany , on 1 May and go to Bremerhaven by private bus .
There , they will be tested for the virus before going into individual quarantine .
Assuming everyone is negative , they will undergo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two weeks , they will travel to Svalbard on two German research vessels and board Polarstern before it returns to the research camp .
Although scientists plan to leave the research station mostly intact , certain measurements will have to stop .
The remotely operated vehicle that dives into the ocean twice a week will be pulled out of the water .
The tethered balloon that monitors the atmosphere will be packed away .
And the scientists ’ continuous collecting of ice and snow samples across the floe will stop .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can with these constraints , ” says Matthew Shupe , an atmospheric and oceanic scientist at the University of Colorado Boulder and co-leader of MOSAiC .
“ But in the end , it ’ s a bummer.
” That is especially true , given that the gap will probably hit during a crucial time : when the ice begins to melt .
Every spring , melting exposes dark ocean water , which absorbs more sunlight than does the ice .
That warms the ocean further and spurs more melt in a vicious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in detail .
It ’ s also when life in the Arctic flourishes .
As sunlight penetrates farther into the ice and upper ocean , sea-ice algae and phytoplankton form massive blooms that provide meals for the rest of the Arctic food web .
It has never been studied before in the central Arctic .
Now scientists might miss it .
The High North News report says the Polarstern will likely reposition closer to the North Pole when it returns after resupply and staff exchange ( my bold ) : “ While the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 2019 and in late February happened as planned , an aerial transfer of staff and resupply out of Svalbard had to be canceled as Norwegian authorities have placed the archipelago on lockdown due to the pandemic .
In early April project leaders had considered chartering an icebreaker or moving a planned resupply mission of the icebreaker Odin from mid-June to mid-May .
However , none of these options turned out to be feasible in light of the travel restrictions .
“ The current situation also means [ that ] the international icebreakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expedition are also prohibited from making any staff transfers , ” explain officials from the Alfred-Wegener-Institute ( AWI ) , the lead German government-funded research organization behind the expedition .
“ The massive restrictions on global travel hindered the third team exchange , which had been planned as an aerial transfer in early April , using the Spitsbergen archipelago as a base of operations.
” … Fortunately the drift corridor of the Polarstern has already taken the vessel in the direction of Svalbard and it is currently located between the North Pole and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ logistical operation , this position is advantageous .
Some instruments on the MOSAiC ice floe will continue recording autonomously until Polarstern returns , while others will be dismantled , ” explains the AWI .
The project leaders may also use the Polarstern ’ s departure from the ice as an opportunity to relocate the ice camp closer to the North Pole .
This possibility has always been part of the planning scenarios in case the ship drifted faster than anticipated and will not have an impact on the scientific research being conducted .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we will set up the Ice Camp again farther north , and continue our observations in a region where the Central Arctic is still covered with ice in the summer .
We ’ re thrilled with the tremendous amount of data we ’ ve been able to gather over the past seven months , ” states expedition leader Prof Markus Rex from the AWI .
Other reports of the coronavirus-lockdown-disruption of this research project are found here , here and here .
On a lighter note , on 23 April 2020 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ice for the crew exchange mid-May , the Polarstern crew had a visit from a polar bear ( below ) : This past week [ 23 April 2020 according to one of the photos ] we had the first polar bear sighting of leg 3 .
In the early morning hours , a curious male polar bear walked through the Central Observatory , checked out a few installations , played with a rubber fender , and continued on to about 800 meters from the ship .
There it sat near a small crack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , likely waiting for a seal to surface .
It caused no damage and , given that no one was outside working at the time , led to very minor disruptions in our work .
[ my bold ]

The worldwide coronavirus lockdown has meant that the MOSAiC research project, which deliberately froze the icebreaker Polarstern into the Arctic Sea ice last fall, will miss taking scientific measurements during several critical weeks of the melt season (one of the main reasons for the project).
According to a report in the High North News (28 April 2020), at 27 April the Polarstern was between Svalbard and the North Pole (map above). In mid-May, the ship will break out of the ice and proceed south to waters off Svalbard (expected to take about a week) to meet up with two German icebreakers for a high-seas exchange of crew and restock provisions, the only option available after the coronovirus lockdown in Svalbard meant the original plans had to be scuttled. And while waiting for the upcoming research upheaval and breaking free of the ice, the crew of the Polarstern recently reported a visit from a polar bear wandering the ice hunting for seals.
From a report in NATURE (24 April 2020, see image above),”Coronavirus shutdown forces research ship to break out of Arctic ice” (my bold):
When scientists were planning MOSAiC — an epic research expedition that would remain trapped in Arctic sea ice for one year — they considered the North Pole’s hazards. They worried about hypothermia, isolation, crushing ice and polar bears. They had dozens of contingency plans. But no one anticipated a pandemic. … “The idea of leaving the camp and floe was certainly not something we would have considered in the original rotation plan,” Fong says. “But given what we’re encountering now, I think it’s an important compromise that recognizes that the human dimension to the work we do is very, very important.” The pandemic also means coordinators are using meticulous precautions to ensure that no one carries the virus to the ship. The next rotation of scientists will arrive in Hamburg, Germany, on 1 May and go to Bremerhaven by private bus. There, they will be tested for the virus before going into individual quarantine. Assuming everyone is negative, they will undergo safety training in group isolation. After two weeks, they will travel to Svalbard on two German research vessels and board Polarstern before it returns to the research camp. Although scientists plan to leave the research station mostly intact, certain measurements will have to stop. The remotely operated vehicle that dives into the ocean twice a week will be pulled out of the water. The tethered balloon that monitors the atmosphere will be packed away. And the scientists’ continuous collecting of ice and snow samples across the floe will stop. “We’re going to do the best we can with these constraints,” says Matthew Shupe, an atmospheric and oceanic scientist at the University of Colorado Boulder and co-leader of MOSAiC. “But in the end, it’s a bummer.” That is especially true, given that the gap will probably hit during a crucial time: when the ice begins to melt. Every spring, melting exposes dark ocean water, which absorbs more sunlight than does the ice. That warms the ocean further and spurs more melt in a vicious cycle that scientists are eager to study in detail. It’s also when life in the Arctic flourishes. As sunlight penetrates farther into the ice and upper ocean, sea-ice algae and phytoplankton form massive blooms that provide meals for the rest of the Arctic food web. It has never been studied before in the central Arctic. Now scientists might miss it.
The High North News report says the Polarstern will likely reposition closer to the North Pole when it returns after resupply and staff exchange (my bold):
“While the first two crew exchanges at the end of 2019 and in late February happened as planned, an aerial transfer of staff and resupply out of Svalbard had to be canceled as Norwegian authorities have placed the archipelago on lockdown due to the pandemic. In early April project leaders had considered chartering an icebreaker or moving a planned resupply mission of the icebreaker Odin from mid-June to mid-May. However, none of these options turned out to be feasible in light of the travel restrictions. “The current situation also means [that] the international icebreakers that were originally meant to resupply the expedition are also prohibited from making any staff transfers,” explain officials from the Alfred-Wegener-Institute (AWI), the lead German government-funded research organization behind the expedition. “The massive restrictions on global travel hindered the third team exchange, which had been planned as an aerial transfer in early April, using the Spitsbergen archipelago as a base of operations.” …
Fortunately the drift corridor of the Polarstern has already taken the vessel in the direction of Svalbard and it is currently located between the North Pole and Fram Strait. “For the upcoming logistical operation, this position is advantageous. Some instruments on the MOSAiC ice floe will continue recording autonomously until Polarstern returns, while others will be dismantled,” explains the AWI. The project leaders may also use the Polarstern’s departure from the ice as an opportunity to relocate the ice camp closer to the North Pole. This possibility has always been part of the planning scenarios in case the ship drifted faster than anticipated and will not have an impact on the scientific research being conducted. “If we drift too far south, we will set up the Ice Camp again farther north, and continue our observations in a region where the Central Arctic is still covered with ice in the summer. We’re thrilled with the tremendous amount of data we’ve been able to gather over the past seven months,” states expedition leader Prof Markus Rex from the AWI.
Other reports of the coronavirus-lockdown-disruption of this research project are found here, here and here.
On a lighter note, on 23 April 2020, while waiting to break out of the ice for the crew exchange mid-May, the Polarstern crew had a visit from a polar bear (below):
This past week [23 April 2020 according to one of the photos] we had the first polar bear sighting of leg 3. In the early morning hours, a curious male polar bear walked through the Central Observatory, checked out a few installations, played with a rubber fender, and continued on to about 800 meters from the ship. There it sat near a small crack in the ice for almost two hours, likely waiting for a seal to surface. It caused no damage and, given that no one was outside working at the time, led to very minor disruptions in our work. [my bold]
via polarbearscience
https://ift.tt/2KIbOER
April 28, 2020 at 03:05PM