<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Latest Articles by JamesNash</title>
<link>http://www.populate.net/</link>
<description>Articles at Populate.NET</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<item>
<title>Gobal Warming Induced Heat Waves Are More Deadly Than A Killer Virus</title>
<link>http://www.populate.net/Environment/gobal-warming-induced-heat-waves-are-more-deadly-than-a-killer-virus.html</link>
<guid>http://www.populate.net/Environment/gobal-warming-induced-heat-waves-are-more-deadly-than-a-killer-virus.html</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[ A record heat wave scorched Europe in August 2003, claiming an estimated 65,000 lives. In France alone, 17,622 people died from the searing temperatures, more than 19 times the death toll from the SARS epidemic worldwide. In the worst heat spell in decades, temperatures in France soared to 104 degrees Fahrenheit (40 degrees Celsius) and remained unusually high for two weeks.

This summer's high temperatures also hit other European countries. Germany saw some 9,000 people die from the heat. Spain and Italy each suffered heat-related losses of nearly 7,300 lives. The heat wave claimed at least 1,900 lives in Portugal and up to 2,400 lives in the Netherlands.

In London - which on August 10th recorded its first triple-digit Fahrenheit temperature - an estimated 1,600 people died from the heat. Heat-related fatalities across the United Kingdom reached 2,045. In Belgium, temperatures higher than any in the Royal Meteorological Society's register dating back to 1833 brought 150 deaths. Since reports are not available for all European countries, the total heat death toll for the continent is likely to be substantially larger. 

August 2003 was the warmest August on record in the northern hemisphere, but according to the projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), even more extreme weather events lie ahead. By the end of the century, the world's average temperature is projected to increase by 2.5-10.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4-5.8 degrees Celsius). As the mercury climbs, more frequent and more severe heat waves are in store.

Though heat waves rarely are given adequate attention, they claim more lives each year than floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes combined. Heat waves are a silent killer, mostly affecting the elderly, the very young, or the chronically ill.

Under normal circumstances, humans maintain a body temperature around 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. When subject to extreme heat, the body attempts to maintain this ideal temperature by varying blood circulation and perspiring. When the internal body temperature rises above 104 degrees Fahrenheit, vital organs are at risk. If the body temperature is not brought down, death follows.

The threshold ambient temperature at which more people are at risk for heat-related health problems varies greatly by location. In general, when summer temperatures range 10 degrees Fahrenheit or more above the norm, incidences of heat-related illness increase dramatically. High humidity compounds the effects of high heat by reducing evaporation, rendering perspiration a less-effective cooling mechanism. When excessive heat prevails for more than two consecutive days, the risk of heat sickness and death escalates. Health and social services may be overwhelmed.

Heat waves take the greatest human toll in cities. Urban centers, where the area of heat-absorbing dark roofs and pavement exceeds the area covered by cooling vegetation, are like "heat islands" and can be as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the surrounding countryside. While people in rural areas generally get some relief from the heat when temperatures fall at night, urban areas stay warmer around the clock. Air pollution, which usually is worse in cities than in the countryside, can also exacerbate the health-damaging effects of high temperatures by further stressing the body's respiratory and circulatory systems.

Several of the worst heat waves of the twentieth century occurred in U.S. cities. In 1955, an eight-day run of temperatures over 100 degrees Fahrenheit in Los Angeles left 946 people dead. In 1972, New York City suffered a two-week heat wave that claimed 891 lives. More recently, an extreme heat wave in Chicago in 1995 killed 739 people in a matter of days. Slow political recognition of the threat and an overloaded response system worsened the effects of the weather anomaly.

A lack of public recognition of the danger that high temperatures pose adds to the lethality of heat waves. Heat wave warnings often do not carry the weight of other natural disaster alerts. Except during major outbreaks, heat-related deaths often go unreported, and few governments systematically keep records of them.

Even once a heat wave has passed, politicians are reluctant to acknowledge its toll. Chicago's mayor denied the severity of the city's 1995 heat wave. In Europe, it took over a month for France's government to release heat wave fatality estimates that corroborated estimates from overwhelmed undertakers. Several neighboring governments are still challenging reports from medical examiners.

Even in India, where heat-related fatalities in the thousands during pre-monsoonal high temperatures are no longer uncommon, the National Disaster Management Cell does not classify heat waves as a natural disaster. While accurate data are hard to come by, it appears that India has seen the number of deaths due to heat climb over the years as populations have grown and temperatures have risen. 

In May 2003, peak temperatures of 113-117 degrees Fahrenheit (45-49 degrees Celsius) claimed over 1,600 lives throughout the country. In the state of Andhra Pradesh alone, some 1,200 people died from the heat. A year earlier, a one-week heat wave with temperatures topping 122 degrees Fahrenheit took over 1,000 lives.

Over the last 25 years the average global temperature rose by 1 degree Fahrenheit, or 0.6 degrees Celsius. The IPCC's projected rise in temperature for this century is a global average, but the temperature is expected to rise more over land, where people live, than over sea. As temperatures continue to climb, the toll of heat waves in individual countries could jump from the thousands to the tens of thousands. The World Meteorological Organization estimates that the number of heat-related fatalities could double in less than 20 years.

Already we are seeing evidence of more frequent heat waves. In India, death tolls from heat that were recorded over an entire summer some 10 years ago are now occurring in just one week. In the United States, a 1998 study of summertime temperatures using data from 1949 to 1995 found that the frequency of extremely hot and humid days and the occurrence of multiple-day heat waves increased significantly during that period. Some of the increase is due to urbanization, a trend that is expected to continue for the foreseeable future.

Although the historical data for heat waves leave much to be desired, we can say with confidence that the August heat wave in Europe has broken all records for heat-induced human fatalities. As awareness of the scale of this tragedy spreads, it is likely to generate pressure to reduce carbon emissions. For many of the millions who suffered through these record heat waves and the relatives of the tens of thousands who died, cutting carbon emissions is becoming a pressing personal issue. ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Will Energy-Saving Lightbulbs Help Fight Global Warming</title>
<link>http://www.populate.net/Environment/will-energy-saving-lightbulbs-help-fight-global-warming.html</link>
<guid>http://www.populate.net/Environment/will-energy-saving-lightbulbs-help-fight-global-warming.html</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[ The European Union is imposing a ban on conventional light bulbs, replacing them with energy-saving bulbs. That ban would fully be in effect within two years, forcing all 490 million citizens of the EU's member states to switch from the current conventional lights they now have. 

However, some problems of this plan have been raised considering that the supposed energy-efficient light bulbs have to be left on all the time, they're made from banned toxins and they won't work in half your household fittings. Yet Europe (and Gordon Brown) says 'green' lightbulbs must replace all our old ones. They also are up to 20 times more expensive than conventional light bulbs. They also give off a much harsher light and do not produce a steady stream of light but rather just flicker 50 times a second. 

These special 'efficient' light bulbs also need more ventilation than conventional bulbs, which means that they cannot be in an enclosed light fitting. I'm sure that this won't inconvenience any of the 490 million who are being forced to switch. In Canada, talk is taking place of having a ban on conventional light bulbs being included in Ross Tawdrey's clean air act. This discussion was recently brought about by the act of Australia taking moves to ban conventional light bulbs by the year 2010. 

As well as that, a lawmaker in California has introduced a bill to ban the selling of conventional bulbs by 2012, with a similar bill also being introduced in New Jersey. Royal Phillips Electronics, one of the leading corporations in producing light fixtures announced that they would stop selling conventional bulbs by 2016. This will result in a massive cost to the consumer, who is losing their free will in where they spend their money and how they choose to help the environment. 

Hoping to get by without buying new bulbs and sneak it by the government? Good luck. As a recent report pointed out in the UK, the government has very intrusive plans to make the UK the world's first green economy. Part of this plan is that every home in the UK is to be 'carbon neutral' within 10 years, making every house updated to 'green' standards. The government said they would provide the renovators, which has led many to fear that it is a method of spying on homeowners to make sure they go green. 

John Sinclair, a member of the Taxpayer's Alliance and critic of the plan stated, It's bad enough that politicians want to take so much of our money away in tax. For them also to intrude into our homes in order to have the ability to penalise us even further is simply unacceptable.

I am not saying that it isn't a good idea to take action to help the environment, but I ask you to consider this: if the majority of scientific data points to the fact that global warming is caused by the Sun, then how will a tax on carbon emissions help to stop it? How does us driving cars cause climate change on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Neptune and Triton? 

Can Al Gore please fill me in on this? If CO2 increases as a RESULT of temperature increases, then how can we hope to accomplish anything by taxing emissions? That's like saying we will prevent the process of humans ageing by dying their grey hairs. It's not grey hair that causes people to age; it's ageing that causes grey hair. And nothing that you do to your hair will have any affect on how long you live. Especially since ageing is a natural process that cannot be stopped and has always occurred and will always occur. Just like climate change. 

It seems worrisome that politicians are all too eager to grab onto this man-made myth of global warming in order to make us afraid and guilty. Guilty enough to want to change it, and afraid enough to give up our freedoms and undergo massive financial expenses in order to do so. So this lie, being pushed by big money and big governments, is a convenient lie for those who want to exert control and collect money. However, it's inconvenient for the mass amount of people who are already experiencing the problems of a widening wage-gap and fading middle class. 

If the problems we are being presented are based on lies, then how do we expect to find any true solution to helping the environment? A Global Tax won't clean up the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez, which is still polluting waters in Alaska nearly 18 years after the spill occurred. A Global Tax won't stop Shell from making the Niger Delta the most endangered Delta in the whole world. No, we have to first be realistic, mature, and have debate about the problems we are facing, and then, and only then, can we even hope to achieve any sort of solution. ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Vilification Of Climate Change Sceptics</title>
<link>http://www.populate.net/Environment/the-vilification-of-climate-change-sceptics.html</link>
<guid>http://www.populate.net/Environment/the-vilification-of-climate-change-sceptics.html</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[ An article in the Washington Times recently discussed how skeptics of global warming are 'treated like a pariah'. The article begins, 'Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack - treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.' The article cites an example of this by mentioning how a climatologist in Oregon might be stripped of his position by the governor for speaking out against the origins of climate change. 

Most skeptics don't claim that climate change is not occurring, they just disagree with what is causing it, and yet they are treated like traitors. A NASA funded study in 2004 found that, 'Changes in the solar cycle - and solar output - are known to cause short-term climate change on Earth.'

In a storm of scientists speaking out against Al Gore's movie, an New Zealand professor of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory has publicly stated, "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention." In response to the use of images in Gore's movie of glaciers breaking off, Dr. James Roebuck, a professor on marine geology and former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Sweden, said that, 'The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier.' 

Makes sense, especially since history tells us that glaciers move, after all, that's what helped form our valleys and reshaped mountain ranges at the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago. Maybe my memory isn't very good, but I don't think people were driving SUVs 10,000 years ago. Another clever use of images to manipulate facts that Gore has in his movie is that of a polar bear seemingly stranded on a piece of a broken off ice berg, stating that polar bears are becoming extinct because of global warming. 

However, there are a few things wrong with this assessment, first of all, that according to a paper published by University of Alaska professor Franklin Kane, 'the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise.' Secondly, if the polar bear is in such danger according to Al Gore, then why does a recent government survey in Canada show that they are not declining, but rather rising in numbers? 

Thirdly, the very idea of a polar bear 'stranded' on a small block of ice is in itself misleading for Gore's argument, as polar bears are excellent swimmers and according to Sea World, 'They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances [and] they've been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (62 miles)' Professor Kane, speaking about Gore and his personal crusade, said, 'The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.'

Even if Al Gore was telling the truth about the causes of global warming, or climate change, which most evidence points to the fact that he is not, but even if he was, he would still be a hypocrite. It was recently revealed that Al Gore doesn't exactly practice what he preaches, such as what he said in his Academy Award acceptance speech, 'People all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It's not a political issue; it's a moral issue.' 

Well, in that case, why is it that a recent study by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research found that one of Al Gore's mansions uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average American does. It was also reported that Al Gore consumes twice as much the electricity in one month that the average American consumes in one year. 

In examining that there is more evidence to prove the basis for a conclusion that changes in climate are more related to an increase in the temperature of the Sun rather than influence of people, we must examine why efforts to expose this myth are stifled and those who speak out are attacked. In fact, there are reported cases of scientists who speak out against the man-made theory as having received death threats. There has even been talk of relating those who speak out against the currently held theory on global warming as being equal to those who deny the Holocaust. 

In a recent op-ed piece in the Boston Herald commenting on the report issued by the UN, Eileen Goodrich wrote, 'Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.' This is a very disturbing comment, not only because there is reason to scientifically doubt the man-made theory, but also because this is a scathing attack on freedom of speech, the most vital and important of all rights and freedoms.

With the UN Panel's judgment in, western politicians are quick to declare that the debate is over, and action must be taken immediately. What is this action that they are planning on taking? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK, Alistair Darling, has publicly called for a 'new world order' to combat the threat of climate change. So let's have a look at this New World Order that's being implemented to combat the threat of global warming.  

One major thing being pushed through with little, cancel that, no debate, is a UN recommendation that we impose 'a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions'. Most people will hear this and think, 'Good, polluters need to be taxed'. Well, this means people who drive cars will be taxed, because according to Al Gore, when you drive your car, you're causing global warming. This is no joke, as an article in the UK's Guardian Newspaper reported that, 'The government is throwing its weight behind a revolutionary plan that would force motorists to pay 1.30 pounds sterling a mile to drive on Britain's busiest roads'. That is approximately $3.00 per mile. 

A study conducted by an expert in transportation and infrastructure found that, 'a Birmingham commuter might end up paying about 1,500 pounds sterling a year for driving 19,000 miles.' That's equal to about $3,000 per year. I don't know about you, but I don't know many people who can afford that. In the European Union, plans are being made to impose an increase of taxes on diesel. The European Commission recently proposed to 'raise the minimum tax on commercial diesel fuel by nearly 20% over the next seven years'. This, they claim, is to help protect the environment because it will act as a deterrent for people to drive. 

This is just excellent news, because as anyone who has driven in the past two years knows, gas prices are just too low. Another concern arising out of the concept of taxing people for how far they drive is how it is done. According to the Transport Secretary in the UK, 'Every vehicle would have a black box to allow a satellite system to track their journey'. This has been raising concerns in the UK of an increase in Big Brother technology and government programs. Proposals currently being made in Canada recommend that, 'Canadians would pay an extra 10 cents per litre at the gas pumps', mirroring plans in the European Union. ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Is The Sun Causing Global Warming?</title>
<link>http://www.populate.net/Environment/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming.html</link>
<guid>http://www.populate.net/Environment/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming.html</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[ Recently, a documentary aired on the UK's Channel 4, entitled 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', which challenged the prevailing political understanding that global warming is caused by man-made activity. 

The movie argues that it is in fact the sun that is responsible for the current changes in the Earth's temperature and the film is riddled with the testimony of many scientists and climate experts, furthering a growing dissent to the man-made theory. After all, that's all it is, a theory. As soon as people start to state that 'the debate is over', beware, because the fundamental basis of all sciences is that debate is never over, that questions must be asked and answered and issues raised in order for the science to be accurate. 

So what exactly are the arguments behind the Sun being the main cause of global warming?

First off, it is very important to address the fact that Earth is not the only planet to be experiencing climate change in our solar system currently. In fact, many astronomers have announced that Pluto has been experiencing global warming, and suggested that it is a seasonal event, just like how Earth's seasons change as the various hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun. We must remember that it is the Sun that determines our seasons, and thusly has a greater impact upon the climate than we could ever even try to achieve. 

In May of 2006, a report came forward revealing that a massive hurricane-like storm that occurred on Jupiter may be caused by climate change occurring on the planet, which is expected to raise its temperatures by 10 degrees. National Geographic News reported that a simultaneous rising in temperature on both Mars and Earth suggest that climate change is indeed a natural phenomenon as opposed to being man-made. 

The report further explains how NASA has reported that Mars' carbon dioxide ice caps have been melting for a few years now. Sound familiar? An astronomical observatory in Russia declared that, 'the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun'. They further point out that both Mars and Earth have, throughout their histories, experienced periodic ice ages as climate changes in a continuous fashion. NASA has also been observing massive storms on Saturn, which indicate a climate change occurring on that planet as well. 

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has also been recording massive climate changes on Neptune's largest moon, Triton. Triton, whose surface was once made up of frozen nitrogen, is now turning into gas. The Associated Press has reported that satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight have been recording an increase in the sun's temperature, meaning that the sun itself is warming up. 

Even the London Telegraph reported in 2004 that global warming was due to the sun being hotter than it has ever been in the past 1,000 years. They cited this information from research conducted by German and Swiss scientists who claim that it is increasing radiation from the sun that is resulting in our current climate change.

Olivier Chenet, a leading French scientist, who was among the first scientists to try to warn people of the dangers of global warming 20 years ago, now believes that 'increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena'. Allegre said, "There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled." 

He is convinced that global warming is a natural change and sees the threat of the 'great dangers' that it supposedly poses as being bloated and highly exaggerated. Also recently, the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus said, when discussing the recent ruling by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is man-made, '"Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so". 

It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. And if you are about to ask why no politicians here seem to be saying this, Klaus offered up an answer, "Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice". 

Rob Browne, the former editor of New Scientist, wrote an article in the UK Sunday Times, in which he stated, "When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works." He further stated that, "Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis". 

And in reference to how the media is representing those who dissent from the man-made theory he stated, 'they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies', which is exactly what I believed up until I did my research. He also wrote, "Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter's billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages". ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>A Critical Look At Al Gore's Documentary</title>
<link>http://www.populate.net/Environment/a-critical-look-at-al-gore-s-documentary.html</link>
<guid>http://www.populate.net/Environment/a-critical-look-at-al-gore-s-documentary.html</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[ For those who saw Al Gore's documentary, it was very convincing of its hypothesis that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that has the potential to kill us all and end humanity. After all, the film was filled with graphs and charts, so it must be true. Let's just get something straight here, Al Gore is not a climatologist, meteorologist, astronomer, or scientist of any kind; he is a politician. And as we all know, politicians always tell the truth. 

However, as Al Gore's popularity grows and with his recent winning of an Academy Award for his movie, the issue has spiraled into a massive push for quick action and stifled debate, forcing many scientists to speak out and challenge the political status quo. A group of scientists recently stated that the research behind Al Gore's film and in fact, the concept of greenhouse gases causing global warming, is 'a sham'. They claim that in fact, there is very little evidence to prove that theory, and that the evidence actually points to an increase in solar activity being the cause of climate change. 

In Gore's movie, he presented evidence that was found in the research done on ice core samples from Antarctica, which he claimed is proof for the theory of CO2 being the cause of rising temperatures. However, this group of scientists state that 'warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels', meaning that a rise in Carbon Dioxide follows a rise in temperature, rather than increasing temperature following rising CO2 emissions. And not only that, but it follows behind the rise in temperature by about 800 years. 

The group also mentions that, 'after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.' They also claim that the report given by the UN, which said it was backed by over 2,000 of the worlds leading scientists, was a 'sham' given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.

Michael Spencer, one of the first Canadian doctors in climatology, recently wrote an article addressing the issue of why no one seems to be listening to scientists who claim that global warming is NOT man-made. He starts by writing, "Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science". He continues, "We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification."

Then he mentions how Environment Canada is spending billions upon billions of dollars on 'propaganda' which defends an 'indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.' Then Dr. Spencer brings up a very interesting point that everyone should take into consideration, citing that 30 years ago, in the 1970s everyone was talking about 'global cooling' and how it was the defining issue of our lives, our species, that our very survival depended on what we did it about it. Interesting, sounds like every Canadian politician. 

Spencer continues to explain that climate change is occurring, but that it is because it is always occurring, it is a natural change that is a result of the changes in the Sun's temperature. He explains that we are currently leaving what was known as a Little Ice Age and that the history of Earth is riddles with changes in the climate. That's what climate does and is always doing, changing. Dr. Spencer claims that 'there is nothing unusual going on,' and that he 'was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as he was to the threats made about Global Warming.'

Dr. Michael Spencer later wrote, in commenting on the problems that arise for scientists who speak out, that, "Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint." He also mentions how he 'was accused by Canadian environmentalists of being paid by oil companies.'

He concludes in referencing others who have and continue to speak out against the prevailing myth of man-made global warming, such as author Michael Crichton, who's book, 'State of Fear', explains the inaccurate science behind the man-made myth. Another prominent name is that of Richard Taylor, an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at Harard, who often speaks out against the man-made theory, yet no one seems to be listening to him. ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Ethanol As An Alternative Fuel Source</title>
<link>http://www.populate.net/Environment/ethanol-as-an-alternative-fuel-source.html</link>
<guid>http://www.populate.net/Environment/ethanol-as-an-alternative-fuel-source.html</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[ With gas prices continuing to stay high, many people are looking at other fuel options, such as, for example, diesel fuel. Ethanol is another alternative fuel option that can also save you some money at the pump.

Ethanol, grain alcohol made mostly from corn in the U.S., has seen a resurgence in interest lately, including new federal mandates to produce at least 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2020. Most ethanol today is blended into gasoline in a mixture called E10, 10 percent ethanol to 90 percent gasoline. All new cars can use E10.

More controversial is a small amount that is blended into a mixture of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline called E85, which only a small percentage of cars can use without damage to their fuel systems.

Engineers are developing ways to make ethanol out of material other than food stocks, such as wood chips and old tires. This cellulosic ethanol will be needed to meet upcoming mandates for ethanol production, and will work in cars the same way corn ethanol does.

More than 7 million vehicles today can run on E85, and new biorefineries are increasing capacity. This has the added benefits of reducing dependence on foreign oil. 

However, using ethanol as an alternative fuel source has a number of disavantages: firstly, cars running on E85 get 27 percent worse fuel economy than they do on gasoline, and less than 1 percent of U.S. gas stations currently sell E85. Secondly, federal fuel economy credits for ethanol may actually be reducing fuel economy in cars overall. And thirdly, increasing demand for ethanol has been blamed for driving up food prices.

The main problem, however, with ethanol is that the majority of engines on the road today are not designed for it. One exception is the Saab 9-5 Biopower engine, which IS optimized for ethanol. It outperforms gasoline, getting 20% more power, 16% greater torque, and 10% better mileage. The Lotus Exige 265E gets 45 more horse power on E85 than it gets on gasoline. Within the next two years, Suzuki, Ford, GM and numerous other car makers will introduce engines which exploit the advantages of ethanol for (a) its higher octane, (b) faster flame speed, (c) lower burn temperature (d) less heat loss, and most importantly (e) for its compatibility with water.

Our system of blending 15% gasoline into ethanol is not necessary. Ethanol can be denatured without using gasoline. That was how politicians created an incentive for oil companies to distribute ethanol, by giving them a 51 cent per gallon tax credit to blend it with gasoline. The problem is, ethanol performs better when it's mixed with water rather than gasoline. This is called hydrous ethanol.

This is nothing new. In the 1920's, the model A Ford cars and trucks ran on 165 proof ethanol, 17.5% water and 82.5% ethanol. Recently, a Hyatt Community College engine testing team lead by instructor Frank Petri, mixed 20% water with pure ethanol, and efficiency in the combustion chamber doubled. When the ethanol explodes, the water instantly turns into additional power in the form of steam and also provides hydrogen and oxygen inside the cylinder. Next year, Ford is introducing the EcoBoost engine, which may also have advanced ethanol technology that improves efficiency even more. Brazil has been using 4% hydrous ethanol for years.

John Roseby, Mechanical Engineer, University of Missouri said: From 1981 to 1989, I worked with Sean Hanley, who had been an engineer on a WW II submarine, and a former captain of a nuclear submarine. We developed two prototype cars, a Ford Pinto Station Wagon and a Mitsubishi Sedan, that ran as well on 65 proof ethanol (2/3 water and 1/3 ethanol) as they did on unleaded regular gas.

So if we can dilute pure ethanol with 2/3 water and run our vehicles on it, why aren't we doing that? Its coming. The State of Louisiana is now planning an experimental hydrous ethanol program that may also be replicated in other states. Dongfeng, a major Chinese auto maker is introducing a car this year, with a slightly modified fuel system, that runs on 65% ethanol and 35% water. They claim hydrogen is formed. Toyota also has a similar hydrous ethanol prototype that produces on board hydrogen.

The argument that ethanol is inferior to diesel and gasoline is not valid. Pure ethanol has higher octane, faster flame speed, lower burn temperature which translates into less heat loss, and most importantly, it mixes with water. With advanced engine technology, it can outperform gasoline 2 to 1 or better. Major automakers are scheduled to produce smaller, lighter, high compression, turbocharged ethanol optimized engines that are a lot more efficient than current gasoline and diesel engines. The fuel will be cheaper, cleaner and made in the USA.

If you prefer an ethanol powered fuel cell, the Tacton Direct Proton Fuel Cell developed by Pinto University's Research Park in Savannah, Georgia is about $2,000, only 1/10 the price of a hydrogen fuel cell. No need to compress hydrogen into ultra high pressure hydrogen tanks, which increases the cost of the fuel and the vehicle. Put safe and friendly ethanol in your conventional liquid fuel tank. Maybe that's why Toyota is building ethanol plants in Brazil, and GM is investing in ethanol development in the U.S. They must know something we don't know about ethanol. ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Christopher Monkton on Global Warming: A Convenient Truth</title>
<link>http://www.populate.net/Environment/christopher-monkton-on-global-warming-a-convenient-truth.html</link>
<guid>http://www.populate.net/Environment/christopher-monkton-on-global-warming-a-convenient-truth.html</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[ Global warming is going to wreak havoc with the world economy. That is the latest prediction based on the idea that our use of fossil fuels and our production and release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is responsible for an increase-to-come in temperatures. 

We've got to act now, we are being told. There is a strong consensus that we're in for some heavy heat and that industry is to blame for it. So energy use must be curtailed and polluters must be made to pay. UN General Secretary Kofi Annan says that there is "a frightening lack of leadership" regarding the steps to take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He blasts the nay-sayers saying the science on climate change "is not science fiction." Those who try to sow doubt about it are "out of step, out of arguments and out of time," he is quoted as saying in this recent article.

All very good, and fine, but there is a small problem: when looking at the science, the facts don't seem to add up. That is what Christopher Monckton says in a two-part article that appeared in the UK's Sunday Telegraph. His conclusion: The science of global warming is being manipulated, we are addressing the wrong problem, and our solutions won't do what their proponents say they will.

Monckton adds that we are asking the developing nations that they should not follow the West's path to industrialization and relative prosperity because it's bad for the planet. Instead of pouring funds into development of valid energy alternatives, we are starting to trade carbon credits, but with regard to energy production, we keep things very much the same as they are.

Over the past couple of weeks, an entertaining debate has been popping up across the Web. First, Christopher Monckton attacked the Stern Report in the Sunday Telegraph, including a downloadable, 40 page paper on global warming as a hoax. Monckton's paper was put under the microscope by many reputable sources and trashed by another UK paper, the Guardian.

So how has Monckton responded? Mostly by admitting that his science was bad and so what his history. So now the point isn't that global warming isn't occurring, it's that what is being done about it is laughable. Well, at least someone is laughing.

There is much debate here which is either being ignored or dismissed. Since the critique of the Mann Hughes Bradely 1998 1000 year temp reconstruction(MBH98) by McKintyre and McKitrick (2003), the global warming critics have been very defensive. The questions raised my M&M are minor questions of an unimportant aspect of the methodolgy, and one of cherry picking the data. The reliance on the North American Britslecone tree rings, which weighted their reconstruction on the warm side (the blade of the famous Hockey Stick) has been affirmed. 

The June 2006 NAS report was very polite in their critique, with questions dealing with "social networks" (ie peer review) that never did the correct type of due diligence, as well as the robustness of MBH98 being called into question. The Little Ice Age and Medevil Warm Period are now back in the lexicon. Mann to this day refuses to recognize either - he shrugs them off as nothing more than weak teleconnections.

The MBH98 reconstruction as well as other multivariate temp reconstructions are important, as they are the only way the Global Warming critics can plead their case (we are living in the warmest period since the beginning of the Holocene Era). 

It disturbs me that a serious newspaper like the Telegraph was prepared to take Monckton's paper seriously. So far as I can find out, Monckton is a former journalist with no scientific background whatsoever.

But presumably the Telegraph couldn't find a reputable scientist prepared to write something that fits their ideological rejection of global warming theory... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>A Moral Obligation to Offset Your CO2 Emissions?</title>
<link>http://www.populate.net/Environment/a-moral-obligation-to-offset-your-co2-emissions.html</link>
<guid>http://www.populate.net/Environment/a-moral-obligation-to-offset-your-co2-emissions.html</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[ The carbon offset industry is new and unproven, and there are some bad examples like planting trees in silly places where they will just die. But we shouldn't let those growing pains distract us from the crucial point: If you take flights, or drive, or you have a big house, you've put some major emissions into the environment, and it's your moral obligation to take them back out again. The best carbon offset programs do exactly that. Buying offsets is miles better than not buying offsets at all.

Sure, we also do need to change our behavior as much as we can to minimize those emissions in the first place. Things like: bike locally, live close to where you work, take trains on midrange trips, reduce the number of longrange trips. Many of us have done all of that. But there's still a few plane trips many of us are not willing to give up. Last week I visited my elderly 75-year-old dad who just got injured, and nothing would have stopped me from doing this trip. For those flights we still do take, carbon offsets are exactly the right thing to do. It's not "lame" or a "placebo" or a guilt-alleviator. It is practical: it removes CO2 from the atmosphere.

Oh yes: the trees. Planting trees seems to have been getting a bad rap recently, but it shouldn't be scoffed at. It's not just a meaningless feel-good gesture. Plants remove CO2 from the environment. That's what photosynthesis IS, and trees are fantastically good at doing exactly that. The northern forests remove so much every summer that they reduce the CO2 content in the entire global atmosphere. Put a summer forest head-to-head with an industrial city and the summer forest can easily soak up everything the city is putting out. (Where we lose ground, globally, is in the northern winter, when the vast northern forests are shut down.)

It's up to us to check out the carbon offset programs and make sure they are really hooked up to effective programs that will really work, that preserve or replant vegetation in areas where it can really grow - and not just die - and also where it will be part of a healthy ecosystem, not just a monoculture of soybeans or corn. My personal favorite offset programs are those that:

1) pay villagers that to conserve intact land in the tropics

2) replant deforested areas in tropical rain forest or tropical savanna

3) encourage villagers to deforest less, by reducing the need for firewood or slash-and-burn agriculture.

Brazil has some good programs going right now, that I have visited on the ground. Costa Rica too. There's an inventive program in Peru that's trying to distribute little efficient stoves to the villagers so they don't have to burn piles of wood every night just to keep warm. These programs DO make a difference. It's up to us to find the best programs. Giving up and saying "some carbon offset programs are lame so I'm not going to buy carbon offsets" is, frankly, a copout. My question to those people is, if you took a cross-country flight that put 1.2 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per passenger, what exactly are you going to do about your 1.2 tons of CO2? Just leave it up there?

Carbon offsetting will make you feel better about being responsible for pouring tonnes of emissions into the atmosphere, and its efficacy is increasing all the time. It also changes behaviours, and most carbon offsetting programs are far from lame - planting trees where they'll just die really does not happen that often.

Carbon offsetting is certainly not the environmental panacea many enviornmentalist suggest it is. And I'm not sure the planet experiences the placebo effect. But hell, I'm sure the starving polar bears will appreciate the gesture. ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Sarah Palin On The Environment: George Bush And Dick Cheney Rolled Into One</title>
<link>http://www.populate.net/Politics/Government/sarah-palin-on-the-environment-george-bush-and-dick-cheney-rolled-into-one.html</link>
<guid>http://www.populate.net/Politics/Government/sarah-palin-on-the-environment-george-bush-and-dick-cheney-rolled-into-one.html</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[ While I disagree with many of Sen. John McCain's policies, I am willing to concede that he may at least make a wise, rational president and represent a step in the right direction for the nation. No longer. With his pick of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, he has shown a spectacular, even dangerous lack of judgment.

In addition to her frightening lack of qualification to be vice president (much less president) of the United States, Palin is an evangelical, anti-choice, pro-gun, right-wing conservative who wants creationism taught in schools. She is currently under investigation by the Alaska Legislature for alleged abuse of office. I simply cannot imagine Palin having anything to do with U.S. foreign policy, domestic policy, national defense or the countless other affairs of federal governance.

A particularly worrisome aspect of the Palin candidacy is her abysmal record on the environment during her two years as Alaska governor, and how that would translate into national environmental policy if she became vice president. Her environmental record as governor of the nation's "last frontier" deserves close examination.

1) Climate change. Although Alaska is ground zero in the crisis of global warming, Palin has done virtually nothing to address the problem except hold meetings and appoint a "climate sub-cabinet" that likewise has done little. Lots of talk, no action. Although in the past two years the Arctic summer sea ice shrunk to the lowest levels ever recorded, Palin apparently does not believe it is human-induced or cause for alarm. She was asked to establish an Alaska Office on Climate Change, an Alaska Climate Response Fund (based on a tax on Alaska oil production) and emissions reduction targets for Alaska, but has taken no action on those requests.

2) Polar bears. This summer, Palin filed suit against the Bush administration over the federal listing of polar bears as threatened, saying that her opposition was based on a "comprehensive scientific review." But when asked to release the scientific review, she refused. The document, later obtained by the public (from the federal government), clearly shows that, contrary to Palin's assertions, the state of Alaska's marine mammal scientists agreed with the federal conclusions that the polar bears are in serious trouble because of global warming and loss of their sea ice habitat, and that they would be gone from Alaska by 2050. 

Palin clearly decided to oppose the listing in order to protect Arctic oil and gas development, then publicly misrepresented the basis for her decision, and then tried to conceal all of that. Having run for office on a platform of honesty and transparency, this behavior was neither. Her extreme position here puts her to the political right of the Bush /Cheney administration.

3) Endangered species. Earlier this year, Palin approved a $2 million state appropriation for a conference on the "economic impacts" of the Endangered Species Act, designed to persuade the public that ESA listings were too costly and unwarranted. Recently she agreed to use the money instead to fund the state's lawsuit against the Bush administration over the polar bear listing - a likely violation of the state constitutional provisions on appropriation. She opposes additional species listings and other protections in Alaska, where many species are at risk because of climate change and other threats.

4) Predator control. Palin approved and expanded the state's aerial predator control program, where wolves are shot from aircraft and bears hunted from aircraft and killed upon landing. This year, her state biologists even dragged 14 newborn wolf pups from their den and, having already shot their parents, then shot each of the pups in the head at close range. Last year, her administration offered a $150 bounty for each wolf killed until the bounty was ruled illegal by the courts. Hundreds of wolves are killed each year by this antiquated state program that has no scientific justification whatsoever, but rather is designed to appease Palin's urban sport hunter supporters.

5) Pebble mine. Palin aggressively opposed the "clean water initiative" on the August ballot in Alaska (which then failed), favoring instead foreign mining company desires for fewer government regulations controlling their toxic effluent into salmon streams. She has supported virtually any and all mining proposals that have come her way, even likely the enormous Pebble gold and copper mine proposed in the Bristol Bay watershed. That plan put at risk the largest runs of sockeye salmon in the world, where this summer fishermen caught more than 27 million salmon.

6) Oil and gas drilling. Palin has supported oil and gas drilling plans anywhere in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the central Arctic, the entire Arctic Ocean, and in fish-rich Bristol Bay and Cook Inlet. On her watch, regulation and government oversight of Alaska oil facilities is terribly lacking, and she has declined to establish a citizens' advisory council to provide more effective public oversight of the expanding oil and gas operations in Arctic Alaska.

7) Exxon Valdez oil spill damages. Palin refuses to push Exxon to pay the government for the unanticipated environmental injuries from the disastrous 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. Almost 20 years later, the private case is still unresolved and the governments likewise have yet to collect full payment from Exxon. Shortly before Palin took office in 2006, the governments presented Exxon with a demand to pay $92 million for this additional environmental damage, but her administration has since not pressed the issue nor taken Exxon to court to collect the money. Meanwhile, Exxon reaps record profits from Alaska.

8) Trans Pacific shipping. Palin repeatedly has been asked by coastal residents and organizations to enhance the safety of merchant shipping through Alaska's Aleutian Islands, a primary shipping route between Asia and North America, but she's done nothing. Citizens want better vessel tracking, powerful rescue tugs along the route and a risk assessment. While her predecessor funded a scoping study, the Palin administration has not appropriated one dime to improve shipping safety through the Aleutians, and says it will take no further action to reduce risk for several years into the future.

The pattern is clear. On the environment, Sarah Palin is essentially George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and perhaps James Watt rolled into one, but with a more pleasant demeanor. At a time when the nation and world urgently need strong environmental leadership from the United States, it is important to look beyond charisma and carefully consider the environmental implications of our vote in November. ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Global Warming Skeptics: Why Do They Exist?</title>
<link>http://www.populate.net/Environment/global-warming-skeptics-why-do-they-exist.html</link>
<guid>http://www.populate.net/Environment/global-warming-skeptics-why-do-they-exist.html</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[ In the global warming debate, there are essentially two broad camps. One believes that the science is settled, that global warming is serious and man-made, and that urgent action must be taken to mitigate or prevent a future calamity. The other believes that the science is far from settled, that precious little is known about global warming or its likely effects, and that prudence dictates more research and caution before intervening massively in the economy.

The "science is settled" camp, much the larger of the two, includes many eminent scientists with impressive credentials. But just who are the global warming skeptics who question the studies from the great majority of climate scientists and what are their motives?

Many in the "science is settled" camp claim that the skeptics are untrustworthy -- that they are either cranks or otherwise at the periphery of their profession, or that they are in the pockets of Exxon or other corporate interests. The skeptics are increasingly being called Deniers, a term used by analogy to the Holocaust, to convey the catastrophe that could befall mankind if action is not taken. Increasingly, too, the press is taking up the Denier theme, convincing the public that the global-warming debate is over.

Many critics became involved in the global-warming debate after the publication of research by Michael Mann. You may not have heard of Mann or read Mann's study but you have often heard its famous conclusion: that the temperature increases that we have been experiencing are "likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years" and that the "1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year" of the millennium. You may have also heard of Mann's hockey-stick shaped graph, which showed relatively stable temperatures over most of the last millennium (the hockey stick's long handle), followed by a sharp increase (the hockey stick's blade) this century.

Mann's findings were arguably the single most influential study in swaying the public debate, and in 2001 they became the official view of the International Panel for Climate Change, the UN body that is organizing the worldwide effort to combat global warming. But Mann's work also had its critics, who published peer-reviewed critiques of their own.

Many critics found that Mann made a basic error that may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology, and that here was no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimate studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians. Instead, Mann and his small group of climate scientists were working on their own, largely in isolation, and without the academic scrutiny needed to ferret out false assumptions.

Worse, the problem also applied more generally, to the broader climate-change and meteorological community, which also relied on statistical techniques in their studies. I]f statistical methods are being used, the critics argue, then statisticians ought to be funded partners engaged in the research to insure as best we possibly can that the best quality science is being done, adding that there are a host of fundamental statistical questions that beg answers in understanding climate dynamics.

In other words, the critics believe that much of the climate science that has been done should be taken with a grain of salt - although the studies may have been peer reviewed, the reviewers were often unqualified in statistics. Past studies, they believe, should be reassessed by competent statisticians and in future, the climate science world should do better at incorporating statistical know-how.

One place to start is with the American Meteorological Society, which has a committee on probability and statistics. As an example of the statistical barrenness of the climate-change world, the critics cite the American Meteorological Association's 2006 Conference on Probability and Statistics in the Atmospheric Sciences, where only eight presenters out of 62 were members of the American Statistical Association.

While the critic's advice - to use trained statisticians in studies reliant on statistics - may seem too obvious to need stating, the "science is settled" camp resists it. Mann's hockey-stick graph may be wrong, many experts now acknowledge, but they assert that he nevertheless came to the right conclusion.

To which the critics, and doubtless others who want more rigourous science, shake their heads in disbelief. They are baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer. ]]></description>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>

