Desperate Climate Scientists File Second Lawsuit Against Top Skeptic

Dr. Tim Ball received the second of two libel lawsuits from North Vancouver law firm of  Roger D. McConchie on Friday (March 25, 2011). Global warming doomsaying professor Michael Mann files the latest writ.

Mann, the infamous creator of the now discredited ‘hockey stick’ graph was once the darling of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a tax hungry government funded organization that blames mankind for raising global temperatures by 0.7 degrees during the 20^th Century. Now he is desperate to hit back at his critics with the help of Big Green’s immense financial resources. Below we examine the shady background of Professor Mann and explain what Ball must do to defeat this latest legal challenge.

The IPCC plucked Mann from total obscurity after his problematic and “rushed” Ph.D was granted. His viva voce examination was in 1996 and he was required to make corrections. Such a two year delay suggests substantial errors and which would normally require a second viva, but this was strangely not recorded. Then, despite having no reputation as a researcher Mann was bizarrely appointed not only as an expert by the IPCC but as Lead Author for the 2001 Third Report.

Several fellow academics, including Dr. Judith Curry smelt something rotten among mendacious Mikey’s tree rings and their fears were confirmed when Canadian statistical experts, Steve McIntyre and Professor Ross McKitrick found a string of ‘errors’ in Mann’s work. All the errors warped the wooden data in favor of the man-made global warming hype.

It transpired Mann and his secretive clique of climatologists who ‘pal reviewed’ his junk science benefited to the tune of millions of dollars in government research grants. Since the Climategate revelations public support for the IPCC has nose-dived as fast as this rascal’s reputation.

Ball Breaker Gambit to Prevent Case Going to Trial

The dubious Penn. State professor now joins Andrew Weaver in using the Canadian law firm to sue Ball, an outspoken critic of the beleaguered global warming religion. The North Vancouver outfit is rumored to be a shill of the Suzuki Foundation. Ball, who is a retiree without corporate backing, may have been singled out simply because he has no deep-pocketed friends and thus may be forced to quit in the face of spiraling legal fees.

But if Suzuki and his paid shills were hoping this new tactic would splinter a spirited skeptic community it has backfired already. 

Many of us fellow climate realists are concerned to get behind Tim and support him pro bono at this critical time. We are appalled at the way ‘Big Green’ has now abandoned all pretence of scientific argument and is going to try to gag skeptics in the courts.

To further assist in this crucial new phase of the climate wars, skeptics are helping Ball set up an official appeal so that the public can make financial donations to assist him in his crucial battle.

Chris Horner, lead attorney for the Competitive Enterprise Institute(CEI) has kindly agreed to give additional legal input as and when requested. Horner, himself, was also ludicrously threatened with a lawsuit by Mann just recently to reveal the follicly challenged fellow knows as little about law as he does scientific ethics. Mann’s writ claims Ball defamed him with this superb gag in a recent (February 9, 2011) statement:

"Michael Mann should be in the State Pen not Penn. State."

Tim, like many principled scientists knows that corruption among scientists is actually quite common. According to official statistics 40 percent of scientists have witnessed such conduct but do not report it. Co-defendants in the action are Frontier Centre for Public Policy Inc. as publishers of the remarks.

 .

Legal Analysis of Mann’s Vexatious Claim

 

It is my opinion that Michael Mann is on a hiding to nothing here as reported in previous articles in which I’ve made commentary. The weakest element in Mann’s prosecution is his willful refusal to abide by the normal strictures expected of reputable scientists.

 

McIntyre and McKitrick (MM) whose statistical analysis first exposed Mann’s shoddy work were themselves vindicated by the US Congress-sponsored Wegman Report that affirmed that their analysis of the disputed papers, MBH98 and MBH99 was robust.

 

Despite these detailed studies exposing the ‘errors’ in Mann’s work the marginalized Mann to this day refuses to publish corrections or let anyone see his calculations, contrary to scientific ethics.

 

Much maligned Michael is so tight-lipped he won’t even comment on why his Ph.D was rushed through, such is the calamity that has befallen him. But he is clearly the author of his own downfall and its no wonder a reasonable person (or juror) may rightly infer that his conduct appears dishonest and indicative of a possible data fraud.

Key Legal Issues That Undermine Mann’s Case

 

Upon discussions with various respected legal experts the advice we have given to Dr. Ball is that he has a sound case; Mann faces defeat in light of his unethical methods that are little more than a cherry-picking of a small number of trees.

 

By any reasonable scientific standard Mann’s position is untenable, as affirmed by the US Congress via the Wegman Report (2006), which in its ‘Findings,’ concludes,
 
"Normally, one would try to select a calibration dataset that is representative of the entire dataset. The 1902-1995 data is not fully appropriate for calibration and leads to a misuse in principal component analysis."

 

The implications for debunking Mann in court are thus huge because as Wegman says,

 

" ..at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface…"

 

Wegman then points out that unlike any reputable branch of science, climatology is a very recent field of research and permeated with a culture of ‘ pal review’ rather than ‘peer review.’  Wegman concludes that "the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility."

 

Thus Ball, like a modern day Paris, may aim his arrows to deftly shoot Mann’s Achilles Heel with an argument that McConchie will find impossible to deflect – secrecy in scientific research is anathema to good science, as spelt out in Wegman’s ‘Recommendations.’

 

Recommendation 2. We believe that federally funded research agencies should develop a more comprehensive and concise policy on disclosure…..Federally funded work including code should be made available to other researchers upon reasonable request, especially if the intellectual property has no commercial value. Some consideration should be granted to data collectors to have exclusive use of their data for one or two years, prior to publication. But data collected under federal support should be made publicly available. (As federal agencies such as NASA do routinely.)

 

As Ken Cuccinelli, the Attorney General for Virginia has discovered, apologists for academic data fraud have helped to hide junk science for too long; only open court confrontation will bring about a final conclusion to the great global warming swindle.

 

Thus Tim Ball will fire straight from the hip with an honest legal strategy of insisting that Mann disclose his metadata to the court i.e. put up or shut up. If Mann declines then once gain he will have proven his utter contempt for the ethics of scientific practice and the court will see that his foolish lawsuit is without grounds and is thus vexatious.

 

Thereafter, expect to see Ball’s lawyers move for dismissal and sanctions against Mann and Suzuki’s hack, McConchie.

 

Nuclear safety: Reactors that can’t melt down

South African nuclear expert gives detailed analysis of the Japan nuclear reactor disaster at Fukushima. Dr. Kelvin Kemm also explains the pebble bed modular reactor, the next generation of nuclear plant design which he helped design.                              

  (Hat tip:Paul Driessen). 

Below is verbatim Kelvin Kemm’s timely new article:

‘Nuclear safety: Reactors that can’t melt down’

The recent tragic events in Japan have brought the issue of nuclear energy to the forefront of public discussion. While some have exploited the tragedy to advance anti-nuclear policies, others have tried to defend this important energy source on the grounds of its importance to our economy and standard of living. 

Missing in the discussion are several important facts. First, the 9.0 earthquake and 30- to 40-foot-high tsunami was a disaster of unprecedented proportion. It killed at least 10,000 people and possibly as many as 18,000.

Second, the Fukushima Daiichi 1 nuclear power plant withstood the quake, which released 32 times more energy than the plant was designed to absorb. But the tsunami came over the 25-foot-high seawall, carried off fuel supplies for the plant’s backup generators, shorted their circuitry and caused other damage, while also knocking out all remaining primary electrical power for dozens of miles. Even so, plant workers and other emergency crews avoided the kind of nuclear disaster many initially feared would occur.

Third, the Fukushima plant had many upgrades since it was first constructed. Numerous enhancements have been added to dozens of other nuclear reactors built since then, under that original design and newer designs.

Fourth, and equally important, significant breakthroughs in nuclear engineering continue to be made. They should now be vetted properly – as they could further reduce or even eliminate the threat of nuclear meltdown. To grasp the significance of these breakthroughs, informed citizens should have a basic understanding of how nuclear power technology developed over the years.

The world’s first nuclear power plants began operating fifty years ago. Since then, nuclear power has advanced considerably, to the point that today some 16% of the world’s electricity is produced by nuclear power. France is the world leader, producing nearly 80% of its electricity from nuclear – and exporting a substantial amount of nuclear-generated electricity to countries like Italy and the UK.

As one might expect, nuclear power technology has improved dramatically over the last half century.  In line with any technology development, various routes and options were examined, and rejected or implemented.

Because nuclear plant technology evolved from systems designed for nuclear submarines, early nuclear plants for generating electricity were engineered to be cooled by water. As a result, most of the world’s large nuclear power plants are situated on ocean coastlines or the banks of large inland rivers and lakes.

Basic nuclear power production physics involves a nuclear reaction that produces heat, which then converts water to steam. Most nuclear reactors use uranium as fuel. Pellets containing uranium are placed into tubes grouped in clusters, known as fuel elements. A number of fuel elements stand vertically in the core of the reactor, where they are covered by water. As uranium atoms are split via nuclear fission, the heat this reaction generates is extracted to convert water into steam.

The steam drives a turbine, which in turn drives an electrical generator. Water pumped from the ocean, river or lake cools the steam after it has passed through the turbine, condensing the steam back to water, so that it can be returned to the reactor heat source and reheated. From the early beginnings of reactor development, two branches of water reactor evolved.

In the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR), the water around and in contact with the fuel elements boils to produce steam, which then passes directly to the turbines.

In the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), water around the fuel elements becomes very hot but does not boil, because it is under pressure. This water then flows to a heat exchanger, which passes the heat to another water circuit that converts the second volume of water to steam. A PWR thus has two independent water circuits, and coolant water and steam never come in contact with the fuel elements.

Over the years the PWR has emerged as the preferred technology, and all modern water-cooled nuclear plants operate as PWRs. However, Japan’s 40-year old Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant was a BWR design, and was approaching retirement. Sadly, before that happened, Japan suffered the worst earthquake and resultant tsunami in its recorded history.

The severe earth movement caused eleven Japanese nuclear power stations to shut down, as their design intended. However, the Daiichi plant was then hit by the tsunami’s massive wall of water. Together they destroyed electricity supply lines to the power station’s primary cooling pumps, while the tsunami knocked out the diesel powered backup systems. Batteries took over, but had a life of only eight hours.

As a result, although the reactors had been shut down successfully, their residual or “decay” heat was still enough to boil water to excessive pressure inside the reactors, in the absence of a functioning cooling system.

Reactor staff then had to release some of the steam to the atmosphere. With it went hydrogen gas, which mixed with air to produce an explosive mixture. That detonated in the outer building structures, blowing them open. The TV images were dramatic, even though the plant’s actual containment structures remained intact.

The reactor operators then had to resort to pumping sea water directly into the reactors to cool them, as their decay heat died away. Their actions appear to have worked, averting a serious nuclear disaster, even though some radiation was released on several occasions. Thus even this very old plant avoided a disaster.

However, over recent years, engineers have developed an innovative alternative nuclear reactor design, known as High Temperature Gas Reactors. Instead of water, they employ helium gas as a coolant. In South Africa, a similar reactor design was developed: the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR). Its fuel is small tennis-ball-sized graphite balls containing granules of uranium, rather than large metal fuel elements. The balls cannot melt.

The PBMR design was developed to be “walk away safe,” which means that the nuclear reactor and its cooling system can be stopped dead in their tracks. The reactor cannot overheat, but will just cool down by itself.

A real-world trial of the reactor system was carried out in Germany, and the reactor cooled just as designed. The operating team really can walk away to have lunch, and the reactor will take care of itself in the event of an emergency shutdown.

As time passes, one would expect that BWR-type reactors will pass into the pages of history, as gas-cooled reactors and other more modern designs move to centre stage. In the meantime, though, steady improvements in nuclear power plant design and safety features have been implemented worldwide.

Nuclear power will likely be the world’s future power source, as nuclear technology continues to evolve. Many great minds have trodden the path of nuclear development over the last half century, and many more are following.

From the dry, dusty plains of Africa, a great contribution has been made toward even safer, more dependable nuclear power, with the development of a reactor type that does not have to rely on large volumes of water.

As Pliny the Elder said almost 2,000 years ago: “There is always something new out of Africa.”

Nuclear power will one day power Africa, and the world – helping to lift billions out of poverty and ensuring that billions more continue to enjoy living standards that poor nations also deserve to have.

__________

 

Dr. Kelvin Kemm holds a PhD in nuclear physics, is currently CEO of Stratek and lives in Pretoria, South Africa. He also serves as a scientific advisor to the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow.

Japan’s Nuclear Tragedy Elicits Green Global Warming style Hype

Radiation experts studying Chernobyl meltdown confirm no long-term risks posed at Fukushima despite media hype over the nuclear disaster. Nature copes well, they found.

 

Last week the world’s media focused attention on the ‘Fukushima 50’-  those brave workers exposed to radiation contamination as they clean up after the explosion at Fukushima’s nuclear plant.

 

We examine the health risks posed from radiation poisoning by such a disaster based on a unique 12-year scientific study at Chernobyl; conclusions that show just how well the natural environment has faired a quarter of a century on from the world’s worst nuclear disaster.

 

Two top radiation experts, Professors Ronald K. Chesser and Robert J. Baker, in creating their joint study, ‘Growing Up with Chernobyl’ painstakingly studied and measured the true aftermath of Chernobyl. These world leading radiation experts present an astonishing new insight that no only shows how robust nature really is, but also exposes the extreme anti-science bias that for decades has ramped up unproven fears about the dangers of nuclear power.

 

 I felt compelled to write this article in light of the media’s scant concern over Japan’s worst earthquake and tsunami that took over 10,000 lives. Despite the still unfolding tragedy from the earthquake and tsunami, the world media has instead chosen to focus on a nuclear accident where no one is reported killed from radiation science proves the outcome is likely to less terrible than is being portrayed.

I find I’m not alone in thinking that the world’s press has its priorities skewed and needs to take another hard look at the science.

 In this regard I want to draw readers’ attention to ‘Growing Up with Chernobyl’, a study that will help provide some comfort to the people of Japan and which demonstrates a positive legacy from Chernobyl; a place where nature has shown a remarkable propensity not only to bounce back, but to provide a rich new bounty.

 

Green Opportunists Will Never Waste a Good Catastrophe

 

Frankly, no one can look at TV broadcasts depicting the heroics of the ‘Fukushima 50’ and not feel desperately sad for the future health prospects of the clean up workers who may face radiation sickness and the associated cancerous consequences.

But what is infuriating is that we can conclude from those images that to the media the tsunami and earthquake weren’t “bad enough” to hold their attention despite the ongoing crisis for Japan’s population with ever-increasing suffering due to starvation and hypothermia. No, the focus is all nuclear now.

 

As Christopher Booker cogently reports in The Daily Telegraph (March 19, 2011) eco-propagandists have been hard at work drumming up fears of a nuclear disaster for Japan “worse than Chernobyl.” But if we look at the science and not the media frenzy then there truly is no prospect of any such catastrophe to match the unprecedented meltdown at Chernobyl’s Reactor IV on April 26, 1986.

 

Nonetheless, that green urban legend about Chernobyl killing “millions” still survives. However, two undaunted professors, academic researchers skilled in radiation contamination, have collected all the facts to squash that fallacy after spending 12 long years painstakingly probing the aftermath of Chernobyl.

 

As with their fellow scientists battling to overcome the hysteria over global warming, Chesser and Baker have had to contend with an endless tide of green propaganda and censorship. In their quest for real science the pair admit they learned “tough lessons about politics, bias and the challenges of doing good science” on this similarly polemicized issue.

 

Chesser is a professor of biological sciences and director of the Center for Environmental Radiation Studies at Texas Tech University. Much of his current research is in reverse-engineering radioactive releases from nuclear accidents. He continues to work at Chernobyl and is currently examining the radioactive contamination and human health issues surrounding nuclear facilities near Baghdad, Iraq.

 

Robert J. Baker is Horn Professor of Biological Sciences Research at Texas Tech and affirmed world-leading research scientist. His research program evaluates molecular variations in organisms exposed to Chernobyl radiation.

 

Chernobyl Recovers to Become Haven for Endangered Species

 

Contrary to their initial expectations, Baker and Chesser were astounded to find that although the local wildlife around Chernobyl had undergone unprecedented levels of radiation “all the animals seemed physically normal….This was true for pretty much every creature we examined.”

 

After the initial decline of the animal populations, which were decimated by radioactive fallout, local wildlife is now thriving. The two were completely taken aback by the lack of evidence for any genetic mutations, as had been the expectation of most theorists.

 

The esteemed experts asserted,

“We also compared the genetic variations of populations inside the [contaminated] Zone with those from relatively uncontaminated areas, and we found no evidence of increased mutation rates from exposure to radioactivity.”

 

They found the most likely reason why Chernobyl has made such a remarkable recovery, “Radiation doses have declined precipitously since the accident—less than 3 percent of the initial radioactivity remains.”

Thus it seems, radiation is more quickly dispersed in nature than previous estimates had thought.

 

In fact, confounding all expectations the Chernobyl region has become a refuge for released populations of Przewalski’s horse and European bison; while the population densities of Russian wild boar are 10 to 15 times greater in the ‘Danger Zone’ than in adjacent areas inhabited by people. In addition, endangered black storks and white-tailed eagles are also more common in the “ Zone.”

 

The preponderance of such rich diversity of life has forced scientists to conclude that this so-called “dead zone” has effectively become a fertile natural preserve.

 

Good Nuclear News is Bad for Big Green Media

 

Despite these incredible findings being published in the prominent American Scientist Journal (Volume 94) this was not the kind of science that broadcasters wanted to show us.

 

Instead of being hailed as champions of science both researchers were met with hostility and mocked for going against the established ideas. The impartial professors lamented:

 

“We couldn’t find a single story that tried to explain the enormous difficulties of determining an accurate number for the excess cancer deaths caused by the radiation fallout from Chernobyl. The press did not attempt to explain the differences in opinions between scientists or the contradictory results of research on animals exposed to radiation.”

 

What they saw, just as with the great global warming debate, a propaganda war is constantly in play; ‘Big Green’ still insists on hyping the myth that a million died from Chernobyl when, in fact, independent studies put the actual death toll in the range of 38 to 4,000 (e.g. see the 2005 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency).

 

Undeterred the two experts insist their unexpected findings will have

 

“…. profound implications for society. If there is an elevated mutation rate and loss of health, then appropriate measures should be taken to protect ourselves. No one would argue with that. But we must be mindful that the costs of over-regulation can be extreme.”

 

Backing this argument are the numbers that most starkly expose nuclear hysteria as per the statistics of U.S. death tolls:

 

Nuclear power plants……………. 0 deaths per year

Wind turbines (2008)…………….41deaths per year

Candles………………..………..126 deaths per year
Bicycles (2008)………..……….716 deaths per year

Agriculture…………….……..1,300 deaths per year
Motorcycles …………………2,500 deaths per year
Car Phones (2002)……………2,500 deaths per year

Alcohol………………….…100,000 deaths per year
Tobacco……………………500,000 deaths per year

 

So why are broadcasters stubbornly stuck in the great rush to dismantle our western way of life?

The ‘Fukushima 50’ are undoubtedly brave and perhaps also knowledgeable about the dangers they face.  So if you want to be better informed about the likely risks posed by a radiation accident then read more from ‘Growing Up with Chernobyl.’

 

 

MIT Experts Says No Significant Radiation Can Leak from Japan Reactor

 Top nuclear scientists advise that the reactors at Fukushima damaged by a tsunami and quake cannot explode. Situation is contained.

 

Dr Josef Oehmen and a team of faculty and staff have set up an information page at  MIT’s Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering (NSE). For those concerned about the dangers at the Japanese nuclear disaster should visit the newly launched MIT NSE Nuclear Information Hub. 

 

Earlier an initial public statement via a press release  (edited by R Allan) advised the public of the following:

 

“Up front, the situation is serious, but under control. There was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity. By "significant" I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would receive on, say, a long distance flight, or by drinking a glass of beer that comes from an areas with high levels of natural background radiation. “

 

(Hat tip: Peter Dun).

 

What happened at Fukushima  

The earthquake that hit Japan was 5 times more powerful than the worst earthquake the nuclear power plant was built for. (The Richter scale works logarithmically; the difference between the 8.9 quake and an 8.2 quake the plants were built for is not 8.9-8.2= 0.7. It is 5-fold.) So, the first hooray for Japanese engineering… everything held up.  When the earthquake hit the nuclear reactors all went into automatic shutdown. Within seconds after the control rods had been inserted into the core and nuclear chain reaction of the uranium stopped. Now, the cooling system had to carry away the residual heat. The residual heat load is about 3% of the heat load under normal operating conditions. 

 

The earthquake destroyed the external power supply of the nuclear reactor. Then the tsunami came much bigger than people had expected when building the power plant. The tsunami took out all sets of backup diesel generators. 

 

When designing a nuclear power plant, engineers follow a philosophy called "Defense of Depth". That means you build everything to withstand the worst catastrophe you can imagine. Then you design the plant in such a way that it can still handle one system failure (that you thought could never happen) after the other. A tsunami taking out all backup power in one swift strike is such a scenario. The last line of defense is putting everything into the third containment which will keep everything, whatever the mess (control rods in or out, core molten or not) inside the reactor. 

 

When the diesel generators were gone, the reactor operators switched to emergency battery power. The batteries were designed as one of the backups to the backups, to provide power for cooling the core for 8 hours. And they did.  Within the 8 hours, another power source had to be found and connected to the power plant. The power grid was down due to the earthquake. The diesel generators were destroyed by the tsunami. Mobile diesel generators were trucked in.  This is where things started to go seriously wrong. The external power generators could not be connected to the power plant (the plugs did not fit). After the batteries ran out, the residual heat could not be carried away any more. 

 

At this point the plant operators begin to follow emergency procedures for a "loss-of-cooling event". This is the next step along the "Depth of Defense" path. The power to the cooling system should never have failed completely, but it did, so they "retreat" to the next line of defense. All of this, however shocking it seems to us, is part of the day-to-day training you go through as an operator, right through to managing a core meltdown. 

 

It was at this stage that people started to talk about core meltdown. If cooling cannot be restore the core will eventually melt… after hours or days. The last line of defense, the core catcher and third containment, will come into play. 

But the goal at this stage was to give the engineers time to fix the cooling systems by managing the heating in the core and keeping the first containment (the Zircaloy tubes containing the nuclear fuel) and second containment (our pressure cooker) intact and operational for as long as possible. Because cooling the core is such a big deal, the reactor has a number of cooling systems, each in multiple versions (the reactor water cleanup system, the decay heat removal, the reactor core isolating cooling, the standby liquid cooling system, and the emergency core cooling system). Which one failed, and when, is not clear at this time.  So imagine our pressure cooker on the stove, heat on low, but on. The operators use whatever cooling system capacity they have to get rid of as much heat as possible, but the pressure keeps building up.

 

To maintain integrity of the pressure cooker (the second containment) pressure has to be released from time to time. Because the ability to do that in an emergency is so important, the reactor has 11 pressure release valves. The operators vent steam from time to time to control the pressure. The temperature at this stage was about 550°C. This is when the reports about radiation leakage starting coming in. Venting the steam releases radiation but it is not dangerous. The radioactive nitrogen and noble gases are no threat to human health as they decay in seconds. 

During venting an explosion took place outside of the third containment (our "last line of defense") and inside the reactor building. (Remember, the reactor building is not intended to keep  radioactivity in… it is to keep weather out.) It is not yet clear what happened, but this is the likely scenario.

 

The operators decided to vent the steam from the pressure vessel– not directly into the environment, but into the space between the third containment and the reactor building (to give the radioactivity in the steam more time to subside). At the high temperature the core had reached, water molecules "disassociate" into oxygen and hydrogen – an explosive mixture. And it did explode, outside the third containment, and damaging the reactor building around it. It was that sort of explosion that caused the Chernobyl disaster, because it happened inside the pressure vessel which was badly designed and not managed properly by the operators. This was never a risk at Fukushima. The problem of hydrogen-oxygen formation is one of the biggies when you design a power plant (if you are not Soviet, that is), so the reactor is built and operated in a way it cannot happen inside the containment. It happened outside. It was not intended, but was OK because it did not pose a risk to the containment. 

Steam was vented and the pressure was now under control. But if you keep boiling your pot, the water level will keep falling.

 

 At the start, he core is covered by several metres of water to allow time to pass (hours, days) before the core gets exposed. Once the rods start to be exposed at the top, the exposed parts will reach the critical temperature of 2200 °C after about 45 minutes. This is when the first containment, the Zircaloy tube, fails. And this started to happen. The cooling could not be restored before there was some damage to the casing of some of the fuel rods. The nuclear material itself was still intact, but the surrounding Zircaloy shell had started melting. What happened next is that some of the byproducts of Uranium decay – radioactive Cesium and Iodine – started to mix with the steam. The big problem, Uranium, was still under control, because theUuranium Oxide rods were good until 3000 °C.

 

It is confirmed that a very small amount of Cesium and Iodine was measured in the steam released into the atmosphere. The operators knew that the first containment on one or more of the rods was about to give.  This was the "go signal" for plan B.

Plan A had been to restore one of the regular cooling systems to cool the core. Why Plan A failed is unclear. One plausible explanation is that the tsunami also took away, or polluted, all the clean water needed for the regular cooling systems.  The cooling water is very clean and demineralized (like distilled water). Pure water does not get activated much, so stays practically radioactive-free. Dirt or salt in the water will absorb the neutrons quicker, becoming more radioactive. This has no effect whatsoever on the core – it does not care what it is cooled by. But it makes life more difficult for the operators when they have to deal with activated (i.e. slightly radioactive) water.  But Plan A failed. Cooling systems were down or clean water was unavailable. Plan B came into effect. This is what it looks like happened.

 

 In order to prevent a core meltdown, the operators started to use sea water to cool the core. The plant is safe now and will stay safe. Japan is looking at an INES Level 4 Accident:  Nuclear accident with local consequences. That is bad for the company that owns the plant, but not for anyone else. Some radiation was released when the pressure vessel was vented. All radioactive isotopes from the activated steam have gone (decayed). A very small amount of Cesium was released, as well as Iodine. If you were sitting on top of the plant’s chimney when they were venting, you should probably give up smoking in order to return to your former life expectancy. The Cesium and Iodine isotopes were carried out to the sea and will never be seen again.

 

 There was some limited damage to the first containment. That means that some amounts of radioactive Cesium and Iodine were released into the cooling water, but no Uranium or other nasty stuff. (Uranium Oxide does not "dissolve" in the water.) There are facilities for treating the cooling water inside the third containment. The radioactive Cesium and Iodine will be removed and stored as radioactive waste in terminal storage. The seawater used as cooling water will be activated to some degree. Because the control rods are fully inserted, the Uranium chain reaction is not happening. That means the "main" nuclear reaction is not happening, thus not contributing to the activation.

 

The intermediate radioactive materials (Cesium and Iodine) are also almost gone at this stage, because the Uranium decay stopped a long time ago. This further reduces the activation. The bottom line is that there will be some low level of activation of the seawater, which will also be removed by the treatment facilities. The seawater will then be replaced over time with "normal" cooling water. The reactor core will be dismantled and transported to a processing facility, just like during a regular fuel change. Fuel rods and the entire plant will be checked for potential damage. This will take about 4-5 years. The safety systems on all Japanese plants will be upgraded to withstand a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami.

 

I believe the most significant problem will be a prolonged power shortage. About half of Japan’s nuclear reactors will probably have to be inspected, reducing the nation’s power generating capacity by 15%.

Experts Prove no Link Between Japan Earthquake and Global Warming

Experts Prove no Link Between Japan Earthquake and Global Warming

 

As junk scientists rush to claim a link between the Japan earthquake and man-made global warming the US Geological Survey refutes those claims.

 

Vitezslav Kremlik, who runs the Czech Republic blog, www.klimaskeptik.cz  showcases the compelling evidence that proves that global seismic readings over the last 110 years show the opposite of what doomsaying cranks are claiming.

 

Professor Bill McGuire of the University College London (UCL) is one of many junk scientists who will be hiding under a rock on the publication of this compelling data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS).

 

The USGS presents compelling evidence that not only is there no link between man-made global warming and earthquakes, but that the annual rate of magnitude 6.0 or above quakes is decreasing ( see graph).

McGuire, who published,“Potential for a hazardous geospheric response to projected future climate changes” (2009) attracted the attention of Reuters, one of the key doomsaying ‚news‘ agencies selling the anti-science propaganda that humans are in some way responsible for any and all natural disasters.

 

The UCL professor even organised a conference to further hype his hoax saying: “When the ice is lost, the earth’s crust bounces back up again and that triggers earthquakes, which trigger submarine landslides, which cause tsunamis.” 

 

Perhaps someone should ask who is paying McGuire to put out this ****.

 

Read more here:

A proof earthquakes are NOT caused by global warming :: Klimaskeptik.cz

UK Govt’s Clueless Carbon Guru is Blowing Your £250 Billion Anyway

UK Govt’s Clueless Carbon Guru is Blowing Your £250 Billion Anyway

 

Britain’s top green bureaucrat on Carbon Markets and Climate Change admits she doesn’t know what she is doing with £250 billion of UK taxes.

 

European Commission Directorate General of Climate Action, Jill Duggan exposes her utter ignorance in an Australian radio interview when challenged about the costs and benefits of Britain’s rush to a ‘green’ economy.

 

Duggan is visiting Australia as head of Britain’s International Emissions Trading scheme and was hoping to win over new converts to her cause. Duggan (and Britain’s ‘Big Green’ goofball government) are aiming to cut emissions of carbon dioxide (that trace gas that comprises less than 0.04 percent of the atmosphere) by 20 percent by 2020.

 

Duggan appeared on Melbourne Talk Radio, on the Steve Price Breakfast Show (March 9, 2011) and when questioned live on air floundered badly exposing the staggering depths of her incompetence.

 

For those who doubt the following transcript of the radio interview is real and is perhaps some nightmarish early ‘climate denier’ April Fool’s joke, then listen to the actual recording here (acknowledgement: Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun).

 

Aussie journalist, Andrew Bolt (AB) leads off by asking Jill Duggan (JD) some pointed questions:

AB:  Can I just ask; your target is to cut Europe’s emissions by 20% by 2020?

JD:  Yes.

AB:  Can you tell me how much – to the nearest billions – is that going to cost Europe do you think?

JD:  No, I can’t tell you but I do know that the modelling shows that it’s cheaper to start earlier rather than later, so  it’s cheaper to do it now rather than put off action.

AB:  Right.  You wouldn’t quarrel with Professor Richard Tol – who’s not a climate sceptic – but is professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin?  He values it at about $250 billion.  You wouldn’t quarrel with that?

JD:  I probably would actually.  I mean, I don’t know.  It’s very, very difficult to quantify.  You get different changes, don’t you?  And one of the things that’s happening in Europe now is that many governments – such as the UK government and the German government – would like the targets to be tougher because they see it as a real stimulus to the economy.

AB:  Right.  Well you don’t know but you think it isn’t $250 billion.

JD:  I think you could get lots of different academics coming up with lots of different figures.

AB:  That’s right.  You don’t know but that’s the figure that I’ve got in front of me.  For that investment.  Or for whatever the investment is.  What’s your estimation of how much – because the object ultimately of course is to lower the world’s temperatures – what sort of temperature reduction do you imagine from that kind of investment?

JD:  Well, what we do know is that to have an evens chance of keeping temperature increases globally to 2°C – so that’s increases – you’ve got to reduce emissions globally by 50% by 2050.

AB:  Yes, I accept that, but from the $250 billion – or whatever you think the figure is – what do you think Europe can achieve with this 20% reduction in terms of cutting the world’s temperature?  Because that’s, in fact, what’s necessary.  What do you think the temperature reduction will be?

JD:  Well, obviously, Europe accounts for 14% of global emissions.  It’s 500 or 550 million people.  On its own it cannot do that.  That is absolutely clear.

AB:  Have you got a figure in your mind?  You don’t know the cost.  Do you know the result?

JD:  I don’t have a cost figure in my mind.  Nor, one thing I do know, obviously, is that Europe acting alone will not solve this problem alone.

AB:  So if I put a figure to you – I find it odd that you don’t know the cost and you don’t know the outcome – would you quarrel with this assessment:  that by 2100 – if you go your way and if you’re successful – the world’s temperatures will fall by 0.05°C?  Would you agree with that?

JD:  Sorry, can you just pass that by me again?  You’re saying that if Europe acts alone?

AB:  If just Europe alone – for this massive investment – will lower the world’s temperature with this 20% target (if it sustains that until the end of this century) by 0.05°C.  Would you quarrel with that?

JD:  Well, I think the climate science would not be that precise.  Would it?

AB:  Ah, no, actually it is, Jill.  You see this is what I’m curious about;  that you’re in charge of a massive program to re-jig an economy.  You don’t know what it costs.  And you don’t know what it’ll achieve.

JD:  Well, I think you can look at lots of modelling which will come up with lots of different costs.

AB:  Well what’s your modelling?  That’s the one that everyone’s quoting.  What’s your modelling?

JD:  Well, ah, ah. Let me talk about what we have done in Europe and what we have seen as the benefits.  In Europe, in Germany you could look at, there’s over a million new jobs that have been created by tackling climate change, by putting in place climate policies.  In the UK there’s many hundreds of thousand of jobs.

 

The above is just excerpt to vividly illustrate how liars, incompetence and junk science are stealing our taxes. Read on for the full transcript of the interview:

Steve Price: There are many experts on both sides of this argument, Andrew.

Andrew Bolt: Yes.

SP: One of them is Jill Duggan.  She’s with the European Union.  She has managed Britain’s initial emissions trading scheme.  She’s in this country to talk at a series of lectures and she’s been good enough to join us on the line.  Thanks for your time.

Jill Duggan: Good morning.

SP:  The debate we’re having which I’m sure you’ve heard resonating around the country since you’ve been here.  Did Britain go through a similar spirited and vocal debate?

JD:  Well, there’s a couple of differences.  Clearly industry in the UK were worried, in the same way that Australian industry is worried, because before the start of any new regulation or scheme . . .  But it didn’t have the same level of public recognition, I don’t think.  And I think that the public in Europe still don’t really know that they’ve got an emissions trading scheme.

AB:  In part isn’t it the case, Jill, that the emissions trading scheme was set so low – the prices – that people haven’t quite noticed it yet and that it hasn’t actually stimulated the investment in green energy that is needed?  And, in fact, Britain next year – apparently – is going to go to a Carbon tax of its own?

JD:  Well it’s already got a Carbon tax, I mean, it’s not been a one-size-fit-all.  It’s not just been emissions trading in Europe – it’s been a variety of policies.  Actually the price of Carbon – the Carbon price in the Emissions trading scheme in Europe is about €15 or €16 a tonne.  I’m not sure what that is in Australian Dollars – it’s probably about $20 a tonne?

SP:  A touch more.  Probably almost $25.

JD:  So that’s the price and that’s been the price for the last couple of years.  I mean, we did get some things wrong in the very beginning and we’ve learned from those.  I fully admit that one of the things that we didn’t do was we didn’t get companies to monitor and report their emissions prior to the start of the scheme.  So when it was set up we did get the figures wrong in that first learning phase back in 2005.

AB:  Can I just ask; your target is to cut Europe’s emissions by 20% by 2020?

JD:  Yes.

AB:  Can you tell me how much – to the nearest billions – is that going to cost Europe do you think?

JD:  No, I can’t tell you but I do know that the modelling shows that it’s cheaper to start earlier rather than later, so  it’s cheaper to do it now rather than put off action.

AB:  Right.  You wouldn’t quarrel with Professor Richard Tol – who’s not a climate sceptic – but is professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin?  He values it at about $250 billion.  You wouldn’t quarrel with that?

JD:  I probably would actually.  I mean, I don’t know.  It’s very, very difficult to quantify.  You get different changes, don’t you?  And one of the things that’s happening in Europe now is that many governments – such as the UK government and the German government – would like the targets to be tougher because they see it as a real stimulus to the economy.

AB:  Right.  Well you don’t know but you think it isn’t $250 billion.

JD:  I think you could get lots of different academics coming up with lots of different figures.

AB:  That’s right.  You don’t know but that’s the figure that I’ve got in front of me.  For that investment.  Or for whatever the investment is.  What’s your estimation of how much – because the object ultimately of course is to lower the world’s temperatures – what sort of temperature reduction do you imagine from that kind of investment?

JD:  Well, what we do know is that to have an evens chance of keeping temperature increases globally to 2°C – so that’s increases – you’ve got to reduce emissions globally by 50% by 2050.

AB:  Yes, I accept that, but from the $250 billion – or whatever you think the figure is – what do you think Europe can achieve with this 20% reduction in terms of cutting the world’s temperature?  Because that’s, in fact, what’s necessary.  What do you think the temperature reduction will be?

JD:  Well, obviously, Europe accounts for 14% of global emissions.  It’s 500 or 550 million people.  On its own it cannot do that.  That is absolutely clear.

AB:  Have you got a figure in your mind?  You don’t know the cost.  Do you know the result?

JD:  I don’t have a cost figure in my mind.  Nor, one thing I do know, obviously, is that Europe acting alone will not solve this problem alone.

AB:  So if I put a figure to you – I find it odd that you don’t know the cost and you don’t know the outcome – would you quarrel with this assessment:  that by 2100 – if you go your way and if you’re successful – the world’s temperatures will fall by 0.05°C?  Would you agree with that?

JD:  Sorry, can you just pass that by me again?  You’re saying that if Europe acts alone?

AB:  If just Europe alone – for this massive investment – will lower the world’s temperature with this 20% target (if it sustains that until the end of this century) by 0.05°C.  Would you quarrel with that?

JD:  Well, I think the climate science would not be that precise.  Would it?

AB:  Ah, no, actually it is, Jill.  You see this is what I’m curious about;  that you’re in charge of a massive program to re-jig an economy.  You don’t know what it costs.  And you don’t know what it’ll achieve.

JD:  Well, I think you can look at lots of modelling which will come up with lots of different costs.

AB:  Well what’s your modelling?  That’s the one that everyone’s quoting.  What’s your modelling?

JD:  Well, ah, ah. Let me talk about what we have done in Europe and what we have seen as the benefits.  In Europe, in Germany you could look at, there’s over a million new jobs that have been created by tackling climate change, by putting in place climate policies.  In the UK there’s many hundreds of thousand of jobs.

AB:  Actually, that’s not right, is it?  I just saw research.  Did you see this?  It came last week. Verso Economics saying that, for example, in Scotland the investment in green power has cost 3.7 jobs for every one green job created.  And there are similar figures; I’m looking at Italy here, Germany, Spain.  They’re all the same figures.

JD:  They’re not all the same figures.  You can pick figures to support any argument.  What I’m saying is that the experience in Europe is we’ve done things well and we’ve had some things which we wish we’d done differently at the start.  The impact on the economy has been that it has stimulated growth in jobs that will last.  It’s not been noticeable in the impact on households.  Not compared to gas and oil prices and the impact that they have on households.  And that we actually have governments in Europe including the UK, Germany and France who are asking for tougher targets now.  Now governments aren’t in the business of trying to undermine their economies.  They want their economies to grow.  If the UK, Germany and France did not believe that this was good for their economies and good for the planet they would not be asking for tougher targets.

AB:  I wish I could believe that.  We’re talking about a region – Europe – that has unemployment at 10% and a growth forecast this year of 1.6%.  I don’t know what we could learn from Europe actually.

JD:  Well.  Europe is not all the same.  Different bits of Europe have different experiences, clearly, and different economies.  Germany is an economy that’s a coal state like Australia and there may be things that you can learn from Germany.  I would not pretend that the UK is the same as Australia.  I recognise that Australia has its own special circumstances.  But I think if you look at how you want an economy to grow over the next 40, 50 years then you can either embrace what is going to be the way forward – and what the rest of the world is looking towards doing (including China and India) – or you can say “No, I’m not going to look at this, I’m going to stick with the same old ways of doing things”.  Now, actually, it takes time to change and it takes a lot of creativity and thought and I’m not saying that every country in the world should change at the same rate.  But this is a serious issue.  I realise that I’m talking to climate sceptics here.

AB:  Ah, look, economic sceptics as well, Jill.  Because, really, when you say for example that China and India will do something: they won’t.  China will, in fact, be responsible for more than three quarters of the world’s growth of emission in the next 20 years. But look, I know we are not going to agree on this…

JD:  That’s right.  There are 1.3 billion people in China who would probably like the same standard of living that Australians enjoy.

AB: Precisely my point. Exactly my point.

JD: But they are also investing very heavily in wind.  They’re the largest manufacturers of wind turbines in the world now.

AB:  We won’t get into an argument because they’re building a coal-fired power station every week.  Thank you for joining us. 

SP:  Jill, thank you.

AB:  I’m not persuaded I’m afraid and Steven I’m just astonished that someone selling a carbon emissions programme here, saying that Europe works, cannot tell us how much Europe’s costs and what it will actually achieve in lowering the world’s temperature.

SP:  And she did say that 550 million people in Europe, acting alone, would not have any impact on global climate.

AB:  So what does that say about Australia?

SP:  So what are we doing? One quick call.

AB:  My God Almighty.

SP:  Paul, good morning.

Paul:  Good morning Andrew, I’m praying: where can I donate?  Please, that lady was just a clown.  She doesn’t know how much it will cost, what it’ll do and if it’ll make no difference.

AB:  But we’ve got to do it anyway, Paul.

SP:  Well, she was left speechless at one point.

Paul: Where do I donate money to get this interview published?  Can it be an advert?  Can it be run during “An Inconvenient Truth”?  Please, I’m praying, where do I give money?

AB:  Paul, I tell you what, Britons will want to give money too because, listen to this – this is how green policies have left Britain risking not having power when they actually need it.  They had on just a couple of days ago, on the BBC, Steve Holliday, who’s the head of the national grid which distributes electricity around the country.  He said because they’re ramping up wind power – which he thought was good, global warming and all that – people might have to get used to an economy where they could only use power when the wind blows.

Steve Holliday:  “We keep thinking about; we want it to be there and provide power when we need it.  It’s going to be a much smarter system then.  We’re going to have to change our own behaviour and consume it when it’s available and available cheaply.”

SP:  They’ll only have lights when the wind blows.  Great stuff!

 

Conclusion: Jill Duggan should be fired and a moratorium on all programs relating to climate change put on hold until an independent commission of international experts fully examines this carbon fraud and determines who should be prosecuted and put behind bars.

 

Big Green Foundation Bankrolls Lawsuits Against Climate Skeptics

Deep-pocketed environmentalist group is implicated in bank rolling a new initiative to silence climate skeptics using libel laws.

 

Beleaguered global warming religionist, Michael Mann has signed up a Canadian law firm with ties to the ultra-green David Suzuki Foundation (DSF) to help buffer him against the increasing tide of criticism for his key role in helping to corrupt climate science. Skeptics fear DSF and other warmist groups will be employing the likes of McConchie for reprisal attacks against skeptic scientists who helped derail the global warming tax raising juggernaut.

 

Internationally renowned climate scientist, Dr. Tim Ball and prominent U.S. skeptic Chris Horner appear to be the first victims of a coordinated attack by discredited ‘hockey stick’ graph conjurer, Michael Mann.
 

Evidence Points To Mann’s Criminal Misconduct

 

It was Canadian statistician, Steve McIntyre, who first exposed the former pin-up boy of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a fraudster caught cynically pocketing millions in taxpayer research grants using bogus global warming data. Professor Mann, still stubbornly defended by his employers, Penn. State University, has sought help from Vancouver attorneys, McConchie Law Foundation in a desperate counter-offensive to salvage what remains of his shattered reputation.

 

It can be no surprise that Mann chose the McConchie Law Foundation of North Vancouver, British Columbia to back him. Canadian skeptics have for some time suspected Roger D. McConchie was a shill of the David Suzuki Foundation. The foundation is a self-styled “solutions-based organization” that operates as a North American spin machine for climate alarm. 

 

The Suzuki Foundation’s intervention comes at a critical time. Both Mann and his university have recently been blighted with further revelations about a cover up in the Climategate scandal. Despite an attempted whitewash by certain self-serving institutions a clique of international climatologists are still under scrutiny by elected officials and lawmakers for falsifying global temperatures to raise fears of catastrophic global warming.

 

In his latest strategy Mann has upped the ante with a veiled threat to sue another prominent skeptic, Chris Horner. CEI attorney, Horner, recently wrote a damning piece in The Daily Caller accusing Penn State University (Mann’s employers) of whitewashing ClimateGate and Mann’s involvement in the fraud.

 
Mann’s threatening riposte to Horner comes one week after Mann had his lawyers issue Dr. Ball with a second official notice of an intention to sue. Ball is a retired professor who obtained his doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College way back in 1983 and is already defending a McConchie libel suit filed by IPCC computer modeler, Andrew Weaver.
 
Unlike Mann or Weaver, retiree Ball has no such sugar daddy backer to nursemaid him through the courts. Although Horner, a skilled attorney is likely to have the backing of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

 

Mann is currently in the midst of a fraud investigation by, among others, Attorney General of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli. The Penn. State professor has seen his career nose-dive since his tree-ring data in his ‘hockey stick’ graph was proven to be concocted from cherry-picked data to exaggerate claims over global warming.

 

Green Conspiracy Trail Leads Back to Suzuki Foundation

 

McConchie recently filed a lawsuit in the British Columbia courts on behalf of Weaver against Dr. Ball after a Canada Free Press (CFP) article on January 10, 2011 entitled, ‘Corruption of Climate Change Has Created 30 Lost Years’ allegedly defamed Weaver.

 

So what are the connections with David Suzuki?  Firstly, Desmogblog are the main cheerleaders of Weaver’s (and Roger D.McConchie’s) legal foray against Dr. Ball. It so happens that James Hoggan, chairman of the David Suzuki Foundation, runs the DeSmogBlog.com website, a vociferous organ of criticism against Ball. The subterfuge of scheming between the Suzuki Foundation and DeSmogBlog has been deliciously uncovered by Donna LaFramboise  here, here, and here.

 

But Mann’s mangled attempts to bait Horner are likely to backfire. The under pressure tree-ring counter spluttered, “The claim by fossil fuel industry lobbyist Chris Horner in his “Daily Caller” piece that I told Eugene Wahl to delete emails is a fabrication — a lie, and a libelous allegation.”

 

In his tirade Mann fumed, “This is, in short, a despicable smear that, more than anything else, speaks to the depths of dishonesty of professional climate change deniers.”

Horner was quick to point out that Mann is as gaffe-prone on law as he is on tree-ring counting and issued his counter challenge, “Please state where I “claim . . . that [Mann] told Eugene Wahl to delete emails,” and also what is libelous, Mr. Mann?”

 

Horner pilloried the Penn. State upstart by pointing out that he, (Horner) was merely repeating Wahl’s commentary such that:

 

“Wahl says Mann did indeed ask Wahl to destroy records, and Wahl did.”

 

To paraphrase Horner’s damning rebuttal, Mann’s delusions could only have a shred of legal credibility if Horner had never added to his sentence “Wahl says.” As it was Wahl accusing Mann not Horner, Mann’s misrepresentation of the facts is further evidence of the dishonesty of this unprincipled cherry picker. If this nonsense is any measure of Roger McConchie’s legal coaching of Mann then Tim Ball’s attorney will be looking forward to their courtroom showdown.

 

More Legal Recriminations on the Horizon?

 

Nonetheless, with Mann now appearing to have his hands deep into Suzuki’s pockets we could be witnessing the start of more legal escapades from the climate alarmist cult.
 

But I’ll backing Tim Ball and Chris Horner all the way here. This Canadian hack law firm should contact me directly if they want more skeptics to sue (me, for instance) as I, and many others, will be staying in hot pursuit of climate swindlers relishing their impending courtroom defeats.

 

Germany Dumps Global Warming – Climate Disruption is Last Green Gasp

German ministers and scientists finally abandon the global warming hype and  preach ‘climate disruption’ claims as last hope for new raft of taxes.

 

Germany’s Federal Ministry of Education and Research (FMER) has signalled a decisive switch in global warming policy. In it’s latest official press release titled, ‘Cold Winter in Europe Does Not Question Climate Change’release (February 22, 2011) Germany’s pro-green government finally fell into line with the U.S. and British environmental campaigners; global warming is dead and ‘climate disruption’ lives in the most populous (82 million inhabitants) nation of the European Union (EU).

 

Germany has long been a major force in the climate wars and Angela Merkel and her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) government, in particular, have shaped wider EU climate policy. With the realization that scares over catastrophic global warming have fooled no one Merkel is pinning her green taxation hopes on the ‘climate disruption’ banner.

 

Bait and Switch as Warming is Out and Disruption is In

 

The FMER, however, was not quite letting go of the global warming narrative as it reared its ugly head more than once in the press announcement. But in a bait and switch move that U.S. President, Barack Obama would have been proud of the Germans obfuscated their outmoded global warming hype amongst the increasing and contradictory body of evidence showing cooling. Taking lessons from the Whitehouse the German version of the global warming spin machine has now switched over to a ‘climate disruption’ narrative instead.

 

In it’s statement, despite conceding that “December in Germany was four degrees colder than average” FMER fiendishly insist that such cold is, in fact, proof of ‘climate disruption’ – a belated tacit admission that global warming had, in fact, stopped in 1998.

 

The German government line now is that, “all over the world more and more humans seem to suffer from extreme weather conditions. The torrential floods in Australia or the centenary fires in Russia last summer: aren’t they unambiguous signs of climate change?”

 

Er, no, FMER, that’s not the best way to do it! Aren’t climatologists constantly telling us that weather events are not climate?

 

Germans Told that Weather is Not Climate

 

But FMER then contradicted their BS and admitted that recent weather events “are neither proof nor counter-evidence for global warming.”

 

Then, sticking strictly to the doomsaying warmist line came Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology and head of the German climate consortium. Marotzke, an otherwise nice chap to his friends, warned us that “our personal sensations are useless” and that “in spite of the cold Northern European winter, 2010, on a global scale, was one of the three warmest years on record." Pull the other one, Jochem!

 

Propagandists like Jochem will have a rather hard time selling that brand of BS in many southern hemispheric nations such as Australia. The Aussies, for instance, had a string of unusually cold weather records in 2010. Alice Springs endured it’s coldest day since August 1966, Sydney had its coldest June morning for 60 years and Melbourne it’s longest cold snap in 14 years.

 

But here we need to realize where the secret weapon for the global warming fraudsters is hidden – its in the so-called ‘homogenized’ data; those computer-crunched numbers (not real temperatures) cooked up by clandestine government organizations such as the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) who both decline to show their calculations to independent auditors.

 

World’s Oceans are Cooling, Not Warming

 

What is not being conscientiously reported is that NOAA admitted that in 2010 sea surface temperatures actually decreased across the equatorial Pacific Ocean with the end of El Niño; a cooling ocean is an excellent signal of future atmospheric temperature trends being that the heat capacity of water is 1000x greater than the heat capacity of the atmosphere and our oceans cover 71 per cent of the planet. So if the oceans are getting cooler they, in turn, will likely begin to cool the atmosphere.

 

 Some measure of sanity is briefly restored in the later part of the statement whereby Annette Schavan, federal minister of research stresses, "The connections between weather and climate are complex and regionally different. We therefore have to further deepen our understanding of system earth to be able to successfully confront the consequences of climate change." At last, we got a frank admission those climatologists have a lot more to learn.

 

More Long-term Evidence Needed from Climate Scientists

 

Thankfully, the minister also affirms what good scientists agree on, which is that “climate change can only be verified by long-term observations” and she suggests we apply caution when we consider the “unusual statistics of 2010 with its record heat in July and the unusually cold winter months.”

 

 Schavan then goes on to assert that climate is subject to rather large natural fluctuations and can change much more on a monthly or yearly basis and that “climate change can have large regional differences.” The problem she and her doomsayers now have is trying to unpick the allegedly ‘man-made’ climate influence from the natural variations our wonderful planet delights in delivering to us.

 

But, sadly, common sense doesn’t prevail in this trite performance and the minister is soon back into the propaganda groove to pronounce that colder weather still equals global warming. Yes, minister – especially for those ‘scientists’ that prefer to live their lives in the virtual world of computer climate models. Without a hint of irony she then reports, “In spite of general global warming, it is inappropriate to assume a simple exclusive overall rising of temperatures. Models are showing that some regions even get colder or seasons are shifting.”

 

Germany now to Pursue Climate ‘Adaptation’ Policies

 

Now hoping she steered enough of her audience back ‘on message’ she concludes, "We need new holistic approaches enabling us to design adaptation to climate change. The federal government, based on their new energy research program to be adopted this spring, will consistently start research activities to max out industrial efficiency potentials as well as those in the fields of buildings and traffic and to open up renewable energy sources. Only this way will we achieve our ambitious climate protection goals and reduce global increase of temperature as much as possible.” So that hubristic ‘we must cut global temperatures by two degrees’ anthem hits the trashcan, too!

 

To sum up, despite increasing evidence contradicting the claims of global warming the deranged governments in Europe, including pro-green Germany, still clinging to the forlorn hope that voters are going to allow the imposition of some climate-related taxes, only today, the spin is firmly on ‘climate disruption’ and ‘mitigation’ because no one, not even the pro-green Germans, are buying the discredited global warming spiel any more!

 

Eco Light Bulb Lunacy Harms Your Health and Destroys Environment

 

While world governments create new laws to protect workers from mercury poisoning, ‘eco-friendly’ lightbulbs present increasing dangers in our homes.
 

Those innocuous looking ’environmentally safer’ light bulbs that Europeans and Americans must now use to light their home are becoming an increasing cause of health concerns. A study by Germany’s Federal Environment Agency found that when one of them breaks, it emits levels of toxic vapour up to 20 times higher than the safe guideline limit for an indoor area.

 

If a bulb is smashed, the UK’s Health Protection Agency advice is for householders to evacuate the room and leave it to ventilate for 15 minutes. So worried by the dangers in industry, the U.S. government has recently introduced a whole swath of tighter new legislation to protect employees from the most serious affects of mercury poisoning on the job.

 

But while workers are being better protected a disconnect appears to have left domestic residents at the highest risk to mercury poisoning they’ve ever faced. 
 

Why is Mercury so Dangerous?

 

Mercury can travel a range of distances, and may remain in the atmosphere up to one year and even travel globally before undergoing transformation. Particle-bound mercury can fall out of the air over a range of distances and oxidized mercury (sometimes called ionic or reactive gaseous mercury (RGM)) is water-soluble and may be deposited at a range of distances from sources depending on a variety of factors including topographic and meteorologic conditions downwind of a source.

  

Mercury contamination easily flows into bodies of water like lakes and streams. Bacteria in soils and sediments convert mercury to methylmercury. In this form, it is taken up by tiny aquatic plants and animals. Fish that eat these organisms build up methylmercury in their bodies. As ever-bigger fish eat smaller ones, the methylmercury is concentrated further up the food chain. This process is called "bioaccumulation" and can lead to congenital malformalities in all species including humans.

 

Governments Failing on Domestic Mercury Hazard 

 

In Britain both the general public and waste disposal companies are realising that local civic authorities have little, if any, specialist hazardous waste disposal teams able to deal with the problem on a wide scale. 

Smaller authorities, in particular, are increasingly being caught out having no policies in place as to how to address the domestic disposal of low energy eco light bulbs that are filled with poisonous mercury; a major hazard causing long-term and irreperable contamination of land and water.

 

Specialist ‘Hazmat’ ( ‘hazardous materials’) companies will charge a hefty sum to safely dispose of consumer and industrial mercury eco lightbulbs. I telephoned one UK company, Envirogreen and they advised me that their minimum call out charge for hazmat collection of mercury-filled lightbulbs is £325 (US$500) even for just one bulb!

Meanwhile in the U.S. the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tells us that,“Recyclers generally require that the light bulbs arrive unbroken” – heaven help you if you have a mishap and bulbs break in your home.

 

Elemental Mercury Vapor – the Greatest Domestic Danger

 

The real worry is that the eco light bulb contains elemental mercury. After a spill of elemental mercury evaporation soon starts and then your problem is that you’re dealing with an invisible, odorless toxic vapor. This is especially true in warm or poorly-ventilated rooms or spaces.

 

The EPA website warns that if a fluorescent light bulb breaks in your home and the mercury is released as mercury vapor then you’re in real danger of being contaminated and poisoned. They advise that the “ broken bulb can continue to release mercury vapor until it is cleaned up and removed from the residence.”

 

Ideally if you were at work and not in your home you’d be far better protected by all that wonderful new EPA legislation. But as a domestic user you’re now in big trouble as the EPA admits.

 

Householders rather than industry face the toughest access to ‘Hazmat’ essential safety disposal services. EPA admits such services are often unavailable or in remote locations. Also they admit such specialist collection services “sometimes collect household hazardous wastes only once or twice a year, so residents will have to hold on to their light bulbs until the collection takes place.”

You got that? If you break your light bulb you may need to keep the spilled toxic mercury in your household for up to a year. Not a pleasant prospect if you’re a family that has inquisitive young fingers.

 

Protect Your Family – Especially Infants and Unborn

 

The EPA warns that it’s the unborn and infants who face the greatest risk. Their website states that,

“some mothers with no symptoms of nervous system damage gave birth to infants with severe disabilities and it became clear that the developing nervous system of the fetus may be more vulnerable to methylmercury than is the adult nervous system.Also, mothers exposed to methylmercury and are breast-feed their babies are also likely to expose their infant children to poisoning through their milk.”

 

For more visit the EPA website under ‘What to Do if a Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) Bulb or Fluorescent Tube Light Bulb Breaks in Your Home.’ Here the experts advise the following steps to avoid harm:

 

Before cleanup 

·        Have people and pets leave the room.

·        Air out the room for 5-10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment. 

·        Shut off the central forced air heating/air-conditioning system, if you have one.

·        Collect materials needed to clean up broken bulb.

 

During cleanup

·        Be thorough in collecting broken glass and visible powder.

·        Place cleanup materials in a sealable container.

 

But once you’ve done your clean this is where your real headache starts. In the sue-happy United States householders are under a legal ‘Duty of Care’ to ensure that eco light bulbs are not placed in amongst regular garbage but must be disposed of safely. So you are liable if you fail to safely dispose of the broken light bulb at the nearest certificated Hazmat disposal facility.
 

The True Scale of the Mercury Poisoning Problem

 

It’s just a worrying in Britain where research shows that there are more than 100 million fluorescent and highway lamps used in the UK alone each year. They produce in excess of 3,100 tonnes of waste material that, until recently, has ended up in landfill sites.

 

Despite each eco bulb containing just a small amount of mercury the sheer volume of waste in Britain means that vast quantities of hazardous mercury may be getting into land and water supplies. For example, mercury from only one fluorescent tube can contaminate up to 30,000 litres of water beyond a safe standard for drinking.

 

The Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005, which came into force in July 2005, incorporated the European Waste Catalogue definitions to assess waste, under these definitions fluorescent tubes are classed as Hazardous Waste and MUST be handled in accordance with the regulation.

 

EPA Makes Mercury a Serious Toxic Poison Issue

 

In December 2010 the EPA implemented new regulations on mining under Section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act due to the dangers of mercury emissions. So fearful has the EPA become of the dangers of mercury contamination that in November 2010 it then updated the Mercury Export Ban Act and developed a frequent questions document to help the public understand and comply with the Act.

These tough new standards cover more than 200,000 boilers and incinerators that emit serious pollutants such as mercury. Thus if you work at such a facility you’re safer, but when you return home you revert to being a vulnerable and unprotected domestic user. But remember – at least you’re now ’eco-friendly!’

Then in February 2011 the EPA further established practical and protective Clean Air Act emissions standards for large and small boilers and incinerators that burn solid waste and sewage sludge including mercury.

So, as we see, while our gloriously greener governments are cracking down on industrial hazards from mercury they are encouraging families to store hazardous broken mercury light bulbs in their homes for up to a year (Read the final regulation | Fact sheet (PDF) ).

 Press and Public Concern Over Mercury Grows

 

In the UK the Mail Online highlighted the disconnect between do-gooders’ desires to protect the planet and the failure to think through the consequences of legislation compelling the use of poisonous mercury-filled light bulbs.

 

In the article ‘We will not pick up toxic new bulbs’: Councils say energy-saving lights are too dangerous for binmen’ (March 6 2011) reporter, George Arbuthnott, caused a furore by revealing that local civic garbage collectors are fearful of mercury contamination and are refusing to collect household waste they suspect contains broken eco-light bulbs. 

 One bemused commenter on the Mail article had this to say on this new eco-farce: “How will the binmen know if I put a light bulb in my wheelie bin? Are they going to sift through the contents?”

One cynic mused, “I bet the oil companies are laughing now that they have found a way to dispose of the mercury that used to be called ‘waste.’”

But there may be less room for jokes once the first recorded death of a child due to mercury poisoning from a broken eco-light bulb hits the news.
 

The UK’s Health Protection Agency (HPA) has a helpful guide to treat domestic mercury poisoning.  Also, watch the ‘Don’t Mess with Mercury’ video now.

 

 

Power Supplier Admits Going Green Will Put the Lights Out in Britain

Power Supplier Admits Going Green Will Put the Lights Out in Britain

 

British families have been told the shocking truth about the price of green energy. They must prepare to go without electricity for extended periods, warns UK’s top electricity boss.

 

Steve Holliday, National Grid’s chief executive issued a stark warning over the consequences of the UK ‘going green’ speaking to listeners to Radio 4’s Today program.

 

The shock admission was immediately picked up in the Daily Telegraph (March 2, 2011) in the article, ‘Era of constant electricity at home is ending, says power chief.’

 

Britain’s largest energy supplier, National Grid is one of the most lucrative privatised monopolies in the world. It dealt the cold realities to a nation already committed to spending £18 billion per year on unnecessary and unpopular ‘green’ taxes. 

 

Brits told – Wind Turbines Whether You Like it or Not

 

The colossal company is hell bent in pursuing an ill conceived agenda to make it’s energy policy more ‘environmentally friendly’ by focusing on wind power.

 

When tackled about how the company was going to keep Britain’s lights on when the wind wasn’t blowing Mr. Holliday replied, “Families will have to get used to only using power when it was available, rather than constantly.”

 

Holliday’s plan will, in effect, take Britons back to the bad, sad old days of the 1970’s when the miner’s strike forced electricity generators to restrict supply and throw the nation’s workers onto the ‘three day week’ whereupon uncollected garbage and dead bodies were piled high and citizens endured a bleak winter in abject misery.

 

“As a society, we all need to be clear about what we can and cannot afford” continued the fat cat enjoying a one million a year salary and a £1.27m bonus.

 

Holliday’s vision confirms the predictions of an increasing number of experts exposing the myths of sustainable energy and documented in a new book, ‘The False Promise of Green Energy.’ The book strongly suggests that green-job proponents have been getting away for too long peddling an unrealistic vision of energy production.

 

Holliday’s words are now fulfilling a bleak prophecy that imposing such ill-conceived measures will either bring a dramatic increase in the cost of energy or significant cuts in its use.

 

Citizens in Revolt over Green Energy Fascism

 

Physicist and leading energy critic, John Droz Jr. responded to Holliday’s bleak draconian prediction saying, “This is the type of ammunition that will resonate with all citizens, anyplace fighting wind energy.”

 

National Grid is used to controversy and is so unpopular a website ‘National Greed’ has been set up to expose it’s shenanigans. Workers revolted over jobs being sent to India at the same time as annual profits hit £2,914million and senior executives were buying Ferraris and stabling them in a "hotel for fine automobiles” (Paul Routledge, Daily Mirror, 31/07/09).

The excellent blog, ‘Bishop Hill’ has been quick to debunk Holliday’s depressing energy outlook, "The talk of dwindling gas supplies is strange. Has Mr Holliday not heard of shale gas? Or does he know something we don’t?"

John Droz. Jr, a committed environmentalist, added, “to me, one of the major unspoken (purposefully hidden) changes going on the modern world is a shift away from: supplying electricity on demand to having strict controls on users to conform to supply.”

 

Thus users are expected to change their habits to conform to the variability (or unavailability) of wind energy.

To add insult to injury, Britain’s Coalition Government, in it’s own Annual Energy Statement for 2010 concedes that by the year 2020, nearly one third of the average domestic electricity bill will consist of green energy charges imposed by law. With grim news such as this it’s no wonder ordinary citizens are fast falling out of love with the environmentalist dream.