Speak No Evil, Dr. Hansen subject of censorship? Options

[JRehling]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/...h/29climate.htm

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Yes, isn't that a charming story? Although completely typical for this administration. I've sent it out to my network of commie-pinko political blog contacts.

[The Messenger]

The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists...
Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen.
"That's not the way we operate here at NASA," he said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts."

So who is lying? Dr. Hansen, or the Deputy Assistant for public affairs?

Neither...the administration does not threaten individuals, they subdue entire organizations. Speak openly, and your entire research center's budget will hit the axe...and god forbid any NASA contractor blow any whistles.

Everyone put your helmets on, dig in, and pray for your program, and most important, let the president know you are praying.

[Jeff7]

Heh, yeah, I heard about this. The administration's doing the same thing to the EPA. Screw over the future for present gratification. How wise.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

House Science Committee Chairman Boehlert has just raised hell about the administration's apparent attempts to stifle Hansen ( http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18878 ). I was hoping he would, but the question is now whether this bunch of megalomaniacs will try to stifle Boehlert as well.

[The Messenger]

House Science Committee Chairman Boehlert has just raised hell about the administration's apparent attempts to stifle Hansen ( http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18878 ).  I was hoping he would, but the question is now whether this bunch of megalomaniacs will try to stifle Boehlert as well.

That would be tough, Boehlert is not one to be bullied. We should all thank him.

There was also the directive issued a few months ago, directing every email requests for information from the public be forwarded to the office of propaganda - there was a half-assed retraction, but it was never clarified as to who could speak for themselves, and who was supposed to put a sock in it.

I think it was 'NASA Watch' that pointed out Griffin's hand-picked advisory panel was all-male. So far his 'NASA is a public agency with an open door policy' is a lot of reteoric and plenty of fodder for skeptics.

[JRehling]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/science/04climate.html

Excerpt:

<<The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose résumé says he was an intern in the "war room" of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen's public statements.

In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word "theory" needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."

It continued: "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."

The memo also noted that The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual specified the phrasing "Big Bang theory." Mr. Acosta, Mr. Deutsch's boss, said in an interview yesterday that for that reason, it should be used in all NASA documents.

The Deutsch memo was provided by an official at NASA headquarters who said he was upset with the effort to justify changes to descriptions of science by referring to politically charged issues like intelligent design. Senior NASA officials did not dispute the message's authenticity.>>

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

I am [/U]not[U] making this up: the same Presidential appointee to NASA's press office who was censoring Hansen's climatology statements has now demanded -- with some success -- that NASA give equal time to Intelligent Design with the Big Bang theory. It turns out that he's a 24-year-old worker in the 2004 Bush campaign with no science education:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/science/...agewanted=print

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

I see John Rehling beat me to it by about 30 seconds. By the time this administration is out of office (assuming that Bush doesn't decide that his virtually unlimited power as a wartime commander constitutionally allows him to override the 22nd Amendment and the 2008 election), we will be picking up what's left of the United States with a spoon.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Footnote ( http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ep...ines-california ):

"In an unprecedented action, the Environmental Protection Agency's own scientific panel on Friday challenged the agency's proposed public health standards governing soot and dust...

"Some panel members called the administrator's actions 'egregious' and said his proposals 'twisted' or 'misrepresented' their recommendations...

"Cal/EPA's air pollution epidemiology chief, Bart Ostro, charged during the teleconference that the EPA had incorporated 'last-minute opinions and edits' by the White House Office of Management and Budget that 'circumvented the entire peer review process.'

"He said research that he and others had conducted also had been misrepresented in the EPA's lengthy justification for the proposed new standards.

"In an interview later, Ostro said he was referring to marked-up drafts of Johnson's proposals that showed changes by the White House budget office and language that was 'very close to some of the letters written by some of the trade associations.' "

[Jeff7]

I see John Rehling beat me to it by about 30 seconds.  By the time this administration is out of office (assuming that Bush doesn't decide that his virtually unlimited power as a wartime commander constitutionally allows him to override the 22nd Amendment and the 2008 election), we will be picking up what's left of the United States with a spoon.

Yeah...I just keep envisioning the scene from Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, where Palpatine declares himself leader of the Galactic Empire, in order to promote security. "So this is how democracy dies. To thunderous applause."

[dvandorn]

"So this is how democracy dies. To thunderous applause."

That's exactly how democracy died in Nazi Germany. If you've never seen it, y'all ought to watch Leni Riefenstahl's film "Triumph of the Will," which "documented" the 1936 Nuremburg Nazi Party rally. Pay close attention to parallels with current events. And try not to be scared spitless.

-the other Doug

[ljk4-1]

That's exactly how democracy died in Nazi Germany.  If you've never seen it, y'all ought to watch Leni Riefenstahl's film "Triumph of the Will," which "documented" the 1936 Nuremburg Nazi Party rally.  Pay close attention to parallels with current events.  And try not to be scared spitless.

-the other Doug

My theory on what Bush and his cronies are doing: Just get a flunky to espouse the big guys' views: If they are accepted, they look like heroes; if the outcry is negative, they can just blame it on a minion who overstepped his authority - all on his own, of course.

Of course the kid also could have done it on his own thinking it would get him points and advancement with his bosses. A lack of science education on his part: When did that ever stop someone from achieving high political office?

Regarding Triumph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_of_the_Will

http://www.geocities.com/emruf4/triumph.html

If the public does not learn from history, we can forget journeying to the stars any time soon.

[Jeff7]

That's exactly how democracy died in Nazi Germany.  If you've never seen it, y'all ought to watch Leni Riefenstahl's film "Triumph of the Will," which "documented" the 1936 Nuremburg Nazi Party rally.  Pay close attention to parallels with current events.  And try not to be scared spitless.

-the other Doug

I had heard that Lucas used imagery from Nazi Germany to help set up some scenes in Star Wars.

[ljk4-1]

I had heard that Lucas used imagery from Nazi Germany to help set up some scenes in Star Wars.

Yes indeed, and The Lion King and - no shock here - Starship Troopers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_of_th...nces_and_legacy

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/science/04climate.html

Excerpt:

<<The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose résumé says he was an intern in the "war room" of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen's public statements.

In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word "theory" needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."

It continued: "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."

The memo also noted that The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual specified the phrasing "Big Bang theory." Mr. Acosta, Mr. Deutsch's boss, said in an interview yesterday that for that reason, it should be used in all NASA documents.

The Deutsch memo was provided by an official at NASA headquarters who said he was upset with the effort to justify changes to descriptions of science by referring to politically charged issues like intelligent design. Senior NASA officials did not dispute the message's authenticity.>>

Here's Kevin Drum's take on it.

[Tom Tamlyn]

The New York Times reports that George Deutsch has resigned amid reports that his resume claims a BA degree that he has not received.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nasa.html [This link will only work for a week unless you're a premium subscriber on the NYT site.)

More info about the degree flap here.

However, the degree flap is a sideshow. The NYT article concludes:

>Yesterday, Dr. Hansen said that the questions about
>Mr. Deutsch's credentials were important, but were a
>distraction from the broader issue of political control of
>scientific information.

>"He's only a bit player," Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Deutsch.
>"He's amusing because he goes to these extremes,
>but the problem is much broader and much deeper and
>it goes across agencies. That's what I'm really concerned about."

>"On climate, the public has been misinformed and not informed,"
>he said. "The foundation of a democracy is an informed public,
>which obviously means an honestly informed public.
>That's the big issue here."

TTT

This post has been edited by Tom Tamlyn: Feb 8 2006, 03:35 AM

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

I figured it was a serious mistake for the Bushites to try to stifle Hansen. He's the 800-pound gorilla of climate science. (Or, as the Waco Kid said about Mongo in "Blazing Saddles": "Don't shoot him. You'll only make him mad.")

[ljk4-1]

The New York Times reports that George Deutsch has resigned amid reports that his resume claims a BA degree that he has not received.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nasa.html [This link will only work for a week unless you're a premium subscriber on the NYT site.)

More info about the degree flap here.

However, the degree flap is a sideshow.  The NYT article concludes:

>Yesterday, Dr. Hansen said that the questions about
>Mr. Deutsch's credentials were important, but were a
>distraction from the broader issue of political control of
>scientific information.

>"He's only a bit player," Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Deutsch.
>"He's amusing because he goes to these extremes,
>but the problem is much broader and much deeper and
>it goes across agencies. That's what I'm really concerned about."

>"On climate, the public has been misinformed and not informed,"
>he said. "The foundation of a democracy is an informed public,
>which obviously means an honestly informed public.
>That's the big issue here."

TTT

Bush obviously has yet to learn about what happens when appointing cronies and flunkies in various political positions. And as I said before in this topic, the kid made a good scapegoat when the big boys' agenda pushing got snagged.

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...indpost&p=40184

How many other "appointees" like Deutsch are out there, just waiting to go off like those Soviet sleeper agents in Telefon?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076804/

At least we can be assured they won't be at any Robert Frost poetry recitals.

[dvandorn]

I just got a phone call from my roommate -- it seems that, after a review of the situation by NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, George Deutsch (the 24-year-old political appointee we've been discussing here) has been fired from his post at NASA.

HA!

-the other Doug

[tty]

Congratulations!

Here in Sweden it is an accepted fact of life that only members of the ruling Social Democrats and their allied parties can get appointments to leading public positions.
Recently the Prime Minister appointed one of his cousins with absolutely no scientific qualifications (but a party member) as head of a research institute. The opposition groused a bit, but of course nothing came of it.

tty

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

The Washington Post and the NY Times have both done editorials tonight on this little affair and its implications:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/opinion/09thu2.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6020801991.html

When a minority of scientists accuse the Administration of deliberate distortion of what scientists are telling it, you might put it down to political bias. When a landslide majority of them in virtually every field say so -- and when Bush's own NASA Administrator says so -- you can no longer do so.

[Jeff7]

"The problem is much broader and much deeper and it goes across agencies."
Quote by George C. Deutsch.

I just wonder exactly how many other organizations have been infiltrated by agents of the administration. I only hope that the next administration declassifies a LOT of documents, and puts the appropriate individuals behind bars. The abuses of power are just insane.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Actually, it was Hansen who said that -- not Deutsch. Deutsch, however, has been heard from tonight, complaining aggrievedly that he is the victim of a Vast Conspiracy of Democratic Party Scientists led by Hansen, and that he holds in his hand a list of 208 scientists in the State Department who... oh, wait, that was last time:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/science/...artner=homepage

Some rude researcher has also dug up the fact that, during Deutsch's days on the Texas A&M newspaper (before he quit without graduating), he was also a big fan of the idea that Lacey Peterson was killed by a gang of Satanists.

[ljk4-1]

Former NASA Public Affairs Official Says He's Under Attack

http://www.space.com/news/ap_060210_deutsch_response.html

A staffer who resigned from NASA after he was accused of restricting access to a
noted climate scientist said Thursday he was targeted because of his political
ties.

[ljk4-1]

WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 10 Feb 06 Washington, DC

1. GLOBAL WARMING: MAYBE SCIENTIFIC OPENNESS IS "ONLY A THEORY."
Last week, WN reported that top NASA climate scientist James
Hansen was under pressure to cool it on global warming. The
pressure, we have since learned, was coming from 24-year old
White House appointee George Deutsch, who had been an intern in
the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. Earlier, Deutsch had
informed a NASA contractor that the word "theory" had to be added
to every mention of the Big Bang. "This is more than a science
issue," he declared, "it is a religious issue." On Friday, NASA
chief Michael Griffin made it clear to all NASA employees that
it's not the job of public affairs to "alter, filter or adjust"
material from the technical staff. Wednesday, Deutsch resigned.
What was he doing in a sensitive position in the first place?
Although his job at NASA was a reward for work in the re-election
campaign, he did have a journalism degree from Texas A&M, didn't
he? Well, actually no. He lied about that. Deutsch was right
about one thing: science issues can also be religious issues.

2. EVANGELISTS: MAYBE GOD DIDN'T MAKE HIMSELF PERFECTLY CLEAR.
There is a rare split among evangelical Christians. A group of
86 evangelical leaders formed the Evangelical Climate Initiative
to combat global warming www.christiansandclimate.org , even
taking out a full-page ad in the NY Times. However, a number of
evangelical heavy weights, including Jerry Falwell and James
Dobson, oppose the initiative, and the National Association of
Evangelicals has decided not to take a position. But what does
God say? "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth and
subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over
the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon
the earth," Genesis 1:28. Well, we've done it. We've subdued
just about everything. Consider the plight of the polar bear.

3. POLAR BEARS: MAYBE THEY'LL GROW FLIPPERS WHEN THE OCEAN MELTS.
Environmental groups sued the government in December to add polar
bears to the endangered species list; their habitat is fast being
destroyed by global warming. According to the Wash Post, the
Bush administration has agreed to study whether polar bears
should be on the list. Coming just as the Evangelical Climate
Initiative is announced, the reality of global warming now seems
to be accepted by almost everyone except petroleum geologists.

4. JOURNALISM? PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS MOVE TO THE ALTERNATE WORLD.
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is presenting
its annual journalism award to novelist Michael Crichton for
"State of Fear," a fictional story in which global warming is not
for real. AAPG was presumably unable to find a journalist
sufficiently divorced from reality to meet oil company standards.

5. BLASPHEMY: ITALIAN JUDGE DISMISSES CASE AGAINST PARISH PRIEST.
The priest had been accused of "abuse of popular credulity."

THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND.
Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the
University of Maryland, but they should be.
---
Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.bobpark.org

[ljk4-1]

The Bad Astronomer's detailed take on this latest round, from his blog:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/02...sigh-of-relief/

[Jeff7]

The Bad Astronomer's detailed take on this latest round, from his blog:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/02...sigh-of-relief/

It's simple: his cover was blown, his usefulness gone = time for him to leave of "his own choice." Disposable underlings. Willing disposable underlings. Convenient.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Hansen today publicly compared Bush's attitude toward scientists to that of the Soviet Union: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1001766_pf.html . I knew it was a mistake for them to jump that guy.

The same article confirms that Deutsch is now saying Hansen is out to get him because he's a Christian. Maybe we should sic the Moslems on him.

[ljk4-1]

Hansen today publicly compared Bush's attitude toward scientists to that of the Soviet Union: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1001766_pf.html .  I knew it was a mistake for them to jump that guy. 

The same article confirms that Deutsch is now saying Hansen is out to get him because he's a Christian.  Maybe we should sic the Moslems on him.

Just like anyone who criticizes the government is now branded unpatriotic by the Bush Regime.

Twisting reality for their own purposes, rather than serving the public as they were elected to do. Of course in certain cases even that much is questioned.

It would be nice to just focus on science and keep above mundane worldly issues and transient politics. But what is happening now threatens science and society.


'But the world itself is only a speck of dust. And man is tiny helpless! How long has he been in existence? For millions of years the earth was uninhabited.'

'Nonsense. The earth is as old as we are, no older. How could it be older? Nothing exists except through human consciousness.'

'But the rocks are full of the bones of extinct animals -- mammoths and mastodons and enormous reptiles which lived here long before man was ever heard of.'

'Have you ever seen those bones, Winston? Of course not. Nineteenth-century biologists invented them. Before man there was nothing. After man, if he could come to an end, there would be nothing. Outside man there is nothing.'

'But the whole universe is outside us. Look at the stars! Some of them are a million light-years away. They are out of our reach for ever.'

'What are the stars?' said O'Brien indifferently. 'They are bits of fire a few kilometres away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out. The earth is the centre of the universe. The sun and the stars go round it.'

Winston made another convulsive movement. This time he did not say anything. O'Brien continued as though answering a spoken objection:

'For certain purposes, of course, that is not true. When we navigate the ocean, or when we predict an eclipse, we often find it convenient to assume that the earth goes round the sun and that the stars are millions upon millions of kilometres away. But what of it? Do you suppose it is beyond us to produce a dual system of astronomy? The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them. Do you suppose our mathematicians are unequal to that? Have you forgotten doublethink?'

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

[ljk4-1]

"The nation is sick. Trouble is in the land. Confusion all around... But I
know, somehow, that only when it is dark enough, can you see the stars."

- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/

[Exploitcorporati...]

what is happening now threatens science and society.

An egregious example on one front

[Jeff7]

An egregious example on one front

"He shows his audiences a graphic that places the theory of evolution at the root of all social ills: abortion, divorce, racism, gay marriage, store clerks who say 'Happy Holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas.'"

"Happy Holidays" is a social ill? He'd really hate me. 1) I'm an atheist. That aside, I.....I don't say "Bless You" when someone sneezes. And that can be dangerous.

I just think that, if all this evidence of God's work was so self-evident, we wouldn't need people like Ham going around preaching it.

"A is for Adam, God made him from dust / He wasn't a monkey, he looked just like us."
So wait, people would then rather believe that we came from dust than from ape-like ancestors?

But damn, the guy makes $120,000 a year. Maybe I'll have to consider a career change.

[ljk4-1]

"He shows his audiences a graphic that places the theory of evolution at the root of all social ills: abortion, divorce, racism, gay marriage, store clerks who say 'Happy Holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas.'"

"Happy Holidays" is a social ill? He'd really hate me. 1) I'm an atheist. That aside, I.....I don't say "Bless You" when someone sneezes. And that can be dangerous.

He's smart enough to go for the easy "safe" targets, the ones that the public doesn't know enough about or consider worthy of supporting.

And he does this to thousands of school aged children. Now who is the real root of all evil and corruption? Why does the attitude of so many people have to be so black and white? Does it give them a sense of security in a big, scary, indifferent Universe?

[ljk4-1]

CENSORSHIP 'JUST TIP OF ICEBERG' (News in Science, 14/2/06)

Allegations the Australian government has pressured some of its top
scientists to keep quiet about the implications of climate change are just
the tip of the iceberg of scientific censorship, commentators say.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1569599.htm


GLOBAL WARMING HITS EUROPE'S GLACIERS, SCIENTISTS SAY (News Online:
09/02/2006)

Europe's longest glacier shrank by 66 metres last year because of global
warming, Swiss scientists said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1565583.htm

[ljk4-1]

News Release: 2006-023

February 16, 2006

Greenland Ice Loss Doubles in Past Decade, Raising Sea Level Faster

The loss of ice from Greenland doubled between 1996 and 2005, as its glaciers flowed faster into the ocean in response to a generally warmer climate, according to a NASA/University of Kansas study.

The study will be published tomorrow in the journal Science. It concludes the changes to Greenland's glaciers in the past decade are widespread, large and sustained over time. They are progressively affecting the entire ice sheet and increasing its contribution to global sea level rise.

Researchers Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and Pannir Kanagaratnam of the University of Kansas Center for Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets, Lawrence, used data from Canadian and European satellites. They conducted a nearly comprehensive survey of Greenland glacial ice discharge rates at different times during the past 10 years.

The rest is here:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/feb/H..._corrected.html

[Jeff7]

He's smart enough to go for the easy "safe" targets, the ones that the public doesn't know enough about or consider worthy of supporting.

And he does this to thousands of school aged children. Now who is the real root of all evil and corruption? Why does the attitude of so many people have to be so black and white? Does it give them a sense of security in a big, scary, indifferent Universe?

Well sure - first you convince them completely that the Universe is in fact big, scary, and mostly evil. Then they'll be more willing to accept anything that might provide some sense of security.

[Guest_PhilCo126_*]

The fac that both NASA & NOAA scientists were ' censored ' in some way was just briefly in the radionews over here ...
About time we get those Hydrogen cars commercialized !

[The Messenger]

For those of us outside of the USofA, American politics tend to be extremely confusing. How could such a clown, who uses English as a second language, get re-elected?

What is not heard by other nations, is the constant drumming of conservative talk shows in the American AM radio bandwidth. When Ronald Reagen gutted the fairness doctrine, that required AM radio station owners to present all sides of an issue, the wealthy right-winged radio station owners coverted the American airwaves into a propoganda mill that rivals Nazi Germany. (It is ironic that largely because of American interjections to the constitutions of Japan and Germany, this would not likely happen in either country.)

As a result, every long haul tractor, every white-bunned angry hayseed has been ween on angry blame-the-godless-liberals for every malady from gas prices to the fact that my neighbor has a bigger fishin' boat than I do. And all scientists are just plain evil.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Two developments:

(1) A parade of scientists with experience with this Administration heaped scorn and wrath on it for trying to censor and distort scientific findings at the AAAS meeting. David Baltimore suggested that this effort is part of their "Unified Executive" theory of government, which I've always felt could be most accurately described as Creeping Fascism -- but which we are certainly going to have to put up with for at least three more years, since Cheney's philosophy bears a close resemblance to Caligula's ("Let them hate as long as they fear"):
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/national...agewanted=print

(2) The White House picked another political flack to replace George Deutsch. This one, however, spent a period putting out press releases for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq -- which means he has ample experience in lying, something that should serve him well at NASA:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/02/...pao_is_hir.html

[helvick]

Caligula's ("Let them hate as long as they fear")

I would rarely be inclined to quote Machiavelli however the insanity behind this quote of Caligula's is even more glaring when read in the light of that other nutter's advice:

Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with.
.....
Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women.

The first part is fairly commonly thrown around but the slightly later paragraph is the real meat of the argument in my book. Machiavelli might have been a more or less complete nut job most of the time but he was a lot more astute than Caligula and in this case he is certainly making a lot of sense.

The reference is probably meant to be an intentional slur by who ever originally thought it up because I'm reasonably sure that most of the current US government's ideologues are perfectly familiar with and even fans of Machiavelli, especially in the context of his more or less correct analysis of why Caligula's (and Nero etc) downfall resulted from the actions that caused his enemies to hate rather than fear him.

Apologies for being OT - I couldn't read the article itself because of that silly registration thing required by the NYT.

[volcanopele]

For those of us outside of the USofA, American politics tend to be extremely confusing. How could such a clown, who uses English as a second language, get re-elected?

What is not heard by other nations, is the constant drumming of conservative talk shows in the American AM radio bandwidth. When Ronald Reagen gutted the fairness doctrine, that required AM radio station owners to present all sides of an issue, the wealthy right-winged radio station owners coverted the American airwaves into a propoganda mill that rivals Nazi Germany. (It is ironic that largely because of American interjections to the constitutions of Japan and Germany, this would not likely happen in either country.)

As a result, every long haul tractor, every white-bunned angry hayseed has been ween on angry blame-the-godless-liberals for every malady from gas prices to the fact that my neighbor has a bigger fishin' boat than I do. And all scientists are just plain evil.

You know, not all of us Republicans are "white-bunned angry hayseeds" in long-haul tractor trailers... though helvick, I am a fan of machiavelli, how'd you guess?

[David]

You know, not all of us Republicans are "white-bunned angry hayseeds" in long-haul tractor trailers... though helvick, I am a fan of machiavelli, how'd you guess?

Me, I prefer the Medici to the Farnesi, but I wonder how realistic it is for me to suppose that I can hijack a thread on space strategy for a discussion of Renaissance Italian politics?

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Since I'm a past master of hijacking threads, let me add that I also learned to like Machiavelli when I read him in college. His "Discourses" on moral philosophy reveal him to be every bit as moral as any other major political writer (and more decent than a lot of them), and make it clear that his more sinister-sounding utterances in "The Prince" were (1) a (futile) attempt to butter up the Medicis to achieve a position of power; and (2) just an indication that he was -- to quote Poul Anderson -- "an unusually clear-minded realist" who was painfully aware that in politics (especially the international variety) sometimes you really DO have to break eggs to make an omelet. One of the constant messages in "The Prince" is that you shouldn't break eggs more than is absolutely necessary, and also that you don't ever -- ever -- turn arrogant. If this Administration had read more Machiavelli, they might have performed both more competently and more morally. Unfortunately, they seem to prefer Caligula's philosophy of government.

And now back to our Regularly Scheduled Scandal. The NY Times has a piece on a session at the AAAS meeting, at which a parade of witnesses (including David Baltimore) described more instances of its trying to conceal and distort the statements of scientists, and stated that this is just part of its overall creeping-totalitarian view of proper government:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/national...agewanted=print

(Courtesy of Andrew Sullivan, who's still a registered Republican.)

[Bob Shaw]

I would rarely be inclined to quote Machiavelli however the insanity behind this quote of Caligula's is even more glaring when read in the light of that other nutter's advice:

The first part is fairly commonly thrown around but the slightly later paragraph is the real meat of the argument in my book. Machiavelli might have been a more or less complete nut job most of the time but he was a lot more astute than Caligula and in this case he is certainly making a lot of sense.

The reference is probably meant to be an intentional slur by who ever originally thought it up because I'm reasonably sure that most of the current US government's ideologues are perfectly familiar with and even fans of Machiavelli, especially in the context of his more or less correct analysis of why Caligula's (and Nero etc) downfall resulted from the actions that caused his enemies to hate rather than fear him.

Apologies for being OT - I couldn't read the article itself because of that silly registration thing required by the NYT.

Oh, I dunno, say what you like about Caligula, but he knew how to throw a party!

Bob Shaw

[ljk4-1]

CLIMATE SCIENCE

- NASA Under Pressure To Ensure Researcher Independence

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_Und...dependence.html

St Louis MO (AFP) Feb 22, 2006 - The US space agency NASA is under increasing
pressure from Congress and the scientific community to make sure its researchers
remain independent after the agency's top expert on climate publicly denounced
attempts to censor his work. The charges, first reported by The NY Times in
January, have since been confirmed by NASA public relations officials.

- Fossil Wood Gives Vital Clues To Ancient Climates

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Fossil_W...t_Climates.html

[ljk4-1]

NASA puts its weight behind warming signs

Press release on ice sheet survey follows internal changes

Following two recent studies on changes to Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, NASA is touting a survey that it says confirms “climate warming is changing how much water remains locked in Earth’s largest storehouses of ice and snow.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11745704/

[The Messenger]

-- Arctic, Antarctic Melting May Raise Sea Levels Faster than Expected
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.nl.html?pid=19357

"Ice sheets covering both the Arctic and Antarctic could melt more quickly than expected this
century, according to two studies that blend computer modeling with paleoclimate records. Led
by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the University of
Arizona, the studies show that by 2100, Arctic summers may be as warm as they were nearly
130,000 years ago when sea levels rose to 20 feet (6 meters) higher than they are today."

[ljk4-1]

Science by popular vote?

ABC News, 31 May 2006

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2025372&page=1

By CLAYTON SANDELL and LIZ MARLANTES

Protesters Call for Resignations, Say Government Ignoring Global Warming Effect
on Hurricanes

May 31, 2006 - To anyone who spent time watching hurricane forecasts last
summer, Max Mayfield may seem like a hero. The director of the National
Hurricane Center predicted many of the season's worst storms.

But a day before the start of the 2006 hurricane season, environmental groups
called for Mayfield and other officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, or NOAA, to resign.

[The Messenger]

"I'm willing to be convinced either way here," Mayfield told ABC's Ned Potter. "I'm always looking forward to looking at new data. If I get convinced, so be it. But I'm not convinced yet."

This is horrible phrasing for a spokesman for systemic, scientific assessments of a natural phenomenon. It is akin to NASA telling a subcontract 'prove to us it will fail'.

No one is certain. Everyone not living in a cave must concede human-induced global warming is a strong possibility. Mayfield's statement indicates he does not understand the rules: We are playing Russian roulette with the only globe we have. Idiot!

[Bob Shaw]

"I'm willing to be convinced either way here," Mayfield told ABC's Ned Potter. "I'm always looking forward to looking at new data. If I get convinced, so be it. But I'm not convinced yet."

This is horrible phrasing for a spokesman for systemic, scientific assessments of a natural phenomenon. It is akin to NASA telling a subcontract 'prove to us it will fail'.

No one is certain. Everyone not living in a cave must concede human-induced global warming is a strong possibility. Mayfield's statement indicates he does not understand the rules: We are playing Russian roulette with the only globe we have. Idiot!

Yes. Let's move!

Bob Shaw

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Yep -- but a crucial question is HOW we move. The strongest criticism that's been made of Gore's new movie is that he never once mentions that humanity's wholesale use of fossil fuels is the only thing that's allowed it to escape worldwide mass poverty -- and that our likely ugly choice later on may be between roasting ourselves and impoverishing ourselves.

The only way off the horns of this dilemma is to find new, adequately cheap technologies for energy production and conservation (and maybe also for the "re-sequestration" of CO2 by pulling it back out of the air). An excellent case can be made that the evidence of dangerous global warming is strong enough right now that we ought to be spending money like crazy on such technological research (especially given the additional danger that we are likely running out of cheap oil). If ever there was good cause for a second Manhattan Project, this is it.

[deglr6328]

Has anyone ever calculated the energy requirement for extracting the anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere. Say we master fusion technology, energy is free and we decide we want to clean up the mess we've made. The concentration of CO2 is still in the sub ppt level and the atmosphere is immense. we must be talking exajoules here (zettajoules even??) at least.

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

Yep -- but a crucial question is HOW we move. The strongest criticism that's been made of Gore's new movie is that he never once mentions that humanity's wholesale use of fossil fuels is the only thing that's allowed it to escape worldwide mass poverty -- and that our likely ugly choice later on may be between roasting ourselves and impoverishing ourselves.

The only way off the horns of this dilemma is to find new, adequately cheap technologies for energy production and conservation (and maybe also for the "re-sequestration" of CO2 by pulling it back out of the air). An excellent case can be made that the evidence of dangerous global warming is strong enough right now that we ought to be spending money like crazy on such technological research (especially given the additional danger that we are likely running out of cheap oil). If ever there was good cause for a second Manhattan Project, this is it.

According to Edward Teller, we can always halt global warming by blasting dust into the stratosphere. Not sayint that's a good idea though.

[attachment=6028:attachment]

I also found this amusing chart of long term global climate. We have a ways to go before there are jungles in antarctica again and dragonflys with 3-foot wingspans.

[helvick]

Has anyone ever calculated the energy requirement for extracting the anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere.

I'm not sure it's all that simple to put an energy figure against it. There are currently about 700 billion tons of excess CO2 in the atmosphere (assuming that the 25% increase in CO2 levels since the start of the Industrial Revolution number is accurate). There are a bunch of ways to sequester the CO2 - the most efficient seems to be geologic - extracting it from the atmosphere and pumping it into suitable places. The cost of such "storage" appears to be about $20-$30 per ton. That's (say) $15-$21 Trillion, which in raw energy costs (which is way to simplistic) is around 300-400 Trillion kWhours.

[David]

I also found this amusing chart of long term global climate. We have a ways to go before there are jungles in antarctica again and dragonflys with 3-foot wingspans.

You're not going to get the latter unless you can figure out how to pump a heck of a lot more oxygen into the atmosphere. You might note that the Carboniferous, when the big dragonflies flourished, was one of the cool epochs.

Of course there have been exaggerated climate swings in the very distant past. But our youthful human civilization - only 5,000 years old, after all - is predicated upon certain assumptions, including that the climate will remain stable, shorelines will stay mostly where they are, and the only major extinction events are ones that we cause. This being the case, we are very sensitive to even very small climate shifts. We could arrange things otherwise; not placing population centers in locations that we expect to disappear underwater in the next few centuries, for instance. But to do that, or indeed anything at all, we'd have to expect the consequences and plan for them -- which can't be done when the people in charge of policy insist on giggling and changing the subject every time the words "climate change" are pronounced.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Bang on. The one course of action that we can say with absolute certainty will NOT turn out to be correct in response to global warming is sticking our heads in the sand.

[dvandorn]

Amen, Bruce. Amen.

-the other Doug

[deglr6328]

......The cost of such "storage" appears to be about $20-$30 per ton. That's (say) $15-$21 Trillion, which in raw energy costs (which is way to simplistic) is around 300-400 Trillion kWhours.

wow ha! 1 KWh = 3.6 MJ so 350 quadrillion Wh =~ 1.26X10^21 J or ~ 1.3 zettajoules! where does the $20-$30 per ton extraction figure come from though?

[helvick]

wow ha! 1 KWh = 3.6 MJ so 350 quadrillion Wh =~ 1.26X10^21 J or ~ 1.3 zettajoules! where does the $20-$30 per ton extraction figure come from though?

I'll have to dig it out again but I found it fairly easily by googling for the cost of CO2 sequestration and found numbers in that region from a number of US DOE sources. I thought the numbers were low myself but that was probably because they were given as incremental costs for sequestering CO2 emissions from active process (ie the cost of adding CO2 scrubbing\filtering to existing power stations for example) so they would be simpler\cheaper than what would be needed to extract CO2 from the atmosphere. Converting the cost directly to energy is very simplistic too as I said but it's worthwhile to do it just to get a ballpark of the energy levels that would be required. Basically quite a lot really.

[Bob Shaw]

Converting the cost directly to energy is very simplistic too as I said but it's worthwhile to do it just to get a ballpark of the energy levels that would be required. Basically quite a lot really.

Helvick:

Basically, better *not* to chuck the stuff up the chimney in the first place! It's like cutting your hand off, then enthusing about the many benefits of Elastoplast - and hooks.

Bob Shaw

[deglr6328]

I'm definitely not enthusing now. If anything though, it makes the prospect of a huge solar shade more attractive!

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

Here's one brief article about Edward Teller's proposal to cool the Earth with atmospheric dust: Edward Teller

[dilo]

I'm definitely not enthusing now. If anything though, it makes the prospect of a huge solar shade more attractive!

Do you really want this stuff? I though of it (proposal #2) - attention, is a "crazy" idea...

[stevo]

Don’t know what you’re all so upset about. From Don’s chart we’ll have nice cool weather again in another 200 million years, give or take.

Probably not a good idea to buy coastal property in low-lying areas in the meantime, though - Florida, Louisiana, SE Texas, Bangladesh, the Netherlands, anywhere near a river delta would probably be a bad choice. Or within about 30º of the equator …

... a ballpark of the energy levels that would be required. Basically quite a lot really.

Helvick, you're a master of understatement.

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

Don’t know what you’re all so upset about. From Don’s chart we’ll have nice cool weather again in another 200 million years, give or take.

Even if we can get industrial CO2 under control, in the long view, Mankind will have to learn to deal with the large swings in climate that occur naturally. During most of its history, the Earth has had no perminant surface ice. And during ice ages (which technically we are in now!), most of the present 1st world would be underneath glaciers. If huma civilization is to continue, we have to adapt or learn to control the global climate.

I've been interested in numerical simulation of the Venusian atmosphere, and wish I knew more about it. I'm concerned about global warming, but the signal to noise ratio is often close to zero. One guy will publish a report with false-color images of the world roasting in 30 years. Then another guy will talk about how nobody knows how to model cloud formation and reflectivity. Yet another will go on and on about how their simulation is open source and runs on home computers...but is it a good numerical model?

Can anyone recommend a good technical article on climate modeling?

In the case of Venus, there has only marginal success in modeling the observed condition of the atmosphere. A few people claim they can simulate the zonal superrotation, but that's still surprisingly mysterious. I am told this is largely because the thick atmosphere has a wickedly long equilibrium time scale (like 100 years), so its a nasty computation. Earth and Mars don't have that particular problem.

[alan]

I'm not sure it's all that simple to put an energy figure against it. There are currently about 700 billion tons of excess CO2 in the atmosphere (assuming that the 25% increase in CO2 levels since the start of the Industrial Revolution number is accurate). There are a bunch of ways to sequester the CO2 - the most efficient seems to be geologic - extracting it from the atmosphere and pumping it into suitable places. The cost of such "storage" appears to be about $20-$30 per ton. That's (say) $15-$21 Trillion, which in raw energy costs (which is way to simplistic) is around 300-400 Trillion kWhours.

I believe that cost estimate is too low

CO2 is currently recovered from combustion exhaust by using amine absorbers and cryogenic coolers. The cost of CO2 capture using current technology, however, is on the order of $150 per ton of carbon - much too high for carbon emissions reduction applications. Analysis performed by SFA Pacific, Inc. indicates that adding existing technologies for CO2 capture to an electricity generation process could increase the cost of electricity by 2.5 cents to 4 cents/kWh depending on the type of process.

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/capture/

Some more information about the various processes in this paper
http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/enclyclop...rgy_article.pdf

[remcook]

Don, I don't know about the details, but I know that the Oxford model ( http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v37n3/dps2005/228.htm ) was a stripped-down version of the Hadley Centre earth model.

poster (a bit large):
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/main/research/posters2005/2005cl.pdf

[helvick]

I believe that cost estimate is too low

Quite probably - your references look better than the sources I found with a quick look. I just pulled the first number that seemed to be backed up by more than one reference.
It's really worth emphasizing that the costs in the references you give mean that dealing with CO2 at source would probably double the cost of energy today and removing the pre-existing stuff humanity has put there would certainly "cost" more than all of the energy we've produced using fossil fuels to date, probably much more.

Pretty freaky.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Hansen has just successfully faced down NASA again: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=20062 .

[ljk4-1]

Scientists declare that climate change is real:

http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs....606140324/1014/

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

It doesn't matter in one sense if global warming is a "natural" event or whether
we are accelerating it or not. The point is that Earth does go through extreme
changes of weather and we better be prepared for it rather than running around
whining about who said what and why. When nature comes barreling in, it won't
give a flying fig about liberals or conservatives or anyone else.

[Jeff7]

Basically, as far as the planet is concerned, climate change isn't a big deal. Animals just migrate elsewhere when their normal range becomes unpleasant to them. Humans get all in a fuss because they have nice houses and they "build lives" around these homes. And of course should anything at all threaten that, it is automatically a "bad" thing and should either be fought, or, in this case, ignored in the hopes that it'll just go away.

[David]

Basically, as far as the planet is concerned, climate change isn't a big deal. Animals just migrate elsewhere when their normal range becomes unpleasant to them.

Sometimes animals can migrate elsewhere. Sometimes, however, animals find that their habitat is totally destroyed; or, in trying to migrate, they find that their ecological niche is already occupied by something they can't compete with. Or they find that they can compete with it, and successfully outcompete it. In either case, species reductions or extinctions come hand in hand with climate change.

Humans, for some reason, have an inexplicable antipathy to the very thought of their own species becoming extinct. However, a survey of over one million other animals, despite the wide variety of responses (including rwaahrr, eep, and ahnk) failed to show that these animals had given the prospect much thought. So what's with these crazy humans?

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

Scientists declare that climate change is real:

http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs....606140324/1014/

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

It doesn't matter in one sense if global warming is a "natural" event or whether
we are accelerating it or not. The point is that Earth does go through extreme
changes of weather and we better be prepared for it rather than running around
whining about who said what and why. When nature comes barreling in, it won't
give a flying fig about liberals or conservatives or anyone else.

The second article is good to see, very sensible. I visted the Hadley Center's website once, and they had a front page editorial recommending the movie The Day After Tomorrow, an absolutely aweful movie from the standpoint of science. That kind of thing just makes people more skeptical. It is frustrating for people who know some science and want to get the facts straight. You realize that despite the importance of this problem, a place like the Hadley Center does have people who are politicizing the issue, who are probably driven by strong left-wing beliefs that this is just another case of why capitalism is evil. This muddles the issue, but people are people, and no one is entirely rational.

There is still a small possibility that "global warming" is just hysterical group think. That does happen in science sometimes, especially when an idea fuels so much public attention and monetary funding.

[dvandorn]

Basically, as far as the planet is concerned, climate change isn't a big deal. Animals just migrate elsewhere when their normal range becomes unpleasant to them. Humans get all in a fuss because they have nice houses and they "build lives" around these homes. And of course should anything at all threaten that, it is automatically a "bad" thing and should either be fought, or, in this case, ignored in the hopes that it'll just go away.

The problem, Jeff, is that the human race is already stretching the planet's agricultural potential to the limits in order to feed everyone. The biggest threat of global warming is the shrinking of total arable land to a point where we cannot produce enough food to feed everyone.

This can happen in one of two ways -- either desertification of arable land and flooding of coastal farms and fields due to rising sea levels and shifting climate patterns, or the freeze-over of arable land due to an ice age triggered by lowered salinity levels in the deep ocean convection system.

If either happens (or if both happen, one after the other), a significant percentage of the human population will starve to death. And don't for one minute think that the nation-states of Earth are above waging war to claim someone else's arable land...

-the other Doug

[edstrick]

"...The biggest threat of global warming is the shrinking of total arable land to a point where we cannot produce enough food to feed everyone.
..."

But, of course, people who are opposed to massively subsidized agricultural ethanol fuel production aren't allowed to point out in the mass media that it just increases the rate of mid-west US soil depletion above the rates caused by current food-supplying agricultural practices.

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

Ethanol from corn seems to be a dumb idea from what I've read about it. The last season of West Wing was practically devoted to debunking Ethanol. But bio-energy as a concept is good. It's basically solar energy, and plants are pretty efficient at converting sunlight into chemical energy.

It would be nice to think that energy companies might be researching what to do as petrolium runs out, but I am afraid they're next plan is to simply liquify coal -- America and China have enormous reserves of coal. That might solve energy supply problems, but it is yet another vast source of new carbon dioxide.

Welcome to the Carbonemissioniferous epoch.

[Jeff7]

The problem, Jeff, is that the human race is already stretching the planet's agricultural potential to the limits in order to feed everyone. The biggest threat of global warming is the shrinking of total arable land to a point where we cannot produce enough food to feed everyone.

This can happen in one of two ways -- either desertification of arable land and flooding of coastal farms and fields due to rising sea levels and shifting climate patterns, or the freeze-over of arable land due to an ice age triggered by lowered salinity levels in the deep ocean convection system.

If either happens (or if both happen, one after the other), a significant percentage of the human population will starve to death. And don't for one minute think that the nation-states of Earth are above waging war to claim someone else's arable land...

-the other Doug

Well I think it's been said that WWIII will be fought over water.
Best two things to happen to humanity technologically may be:
Accessible fusion power, which then powers massive desalinization plants.
Fusion plants near the ocean, a processable source of deuterium I believe, and then the desalinization plants to produce huge quantities of fresh water.
Just making such technology available to parts of Africa could allow the continent to start to improve quality of life for its people. That, and major governmental changes in certain areas, but that's another issue entirely.

And I know that there are sadly few things that leaders aren't willing to go to war for. One leader insults another's mother, and a war can start right there.

Concerning ethanol production - Scientific American had a little article recently about this very subject. If we move to large scale ethanol production, oil won't be the problem. It will be water.
Something else that they mentioned in a different article was that some of the best farmland in the US is now underneath blacktop and skyscrapers. Cities were built largely around small successful farming communities, simply because that's how they had to do things to provide food to the residents. Now it's all paved over and effectively sealed off.

It would be nice to think that energy companies might be researching what to do as petrolium runs out, but I am afraid they're next plan is to simply liquify coal -- America and China have enormous reserves of coal. That might solve energy supply problems, but it is yet another vast source of new carbon dioxide.

Kind of sounds like a patient that's being bled to get the bad blood out.
"Doctor, he's losing too much blood from being bled, what can we do?"
"Get me some leeches. Lots of leeches."

[The Messenger]

Ethanol from corn seems to be a dumb idea from what I've read about it. The last season of West Wing was practically devoted to debunking Ethanol. But bio-energy as a concept is good. It's basically solar energy, and plants are pretty efficient at converting sunlight into chemical energy.

It would be nice to think that energy companies might be researching what to do as petrolium runs out, but I am afraid they're next plan is to simply liquify coal -- America and China have enormous reserves of coal. That might solve energy supply problems, but it is yet another vast source of new carbon dioxide.

Welcome to the Carbonemissioniferous epoch.

...except that the tractors don't run on solar power, and neither do the nitration plants used to fertilize the soil. The last time I saw the numbers that factored in all the energy budget for ethanol production, the net result was slightly negative- at least using US farming techniques. That number may have changed - I haven't seen any data on this less than ten years old.

[Jeff7]

Ethanol from corn seems to be a dumb idea from what I've read about it. The last season of West Wing was practically devoted to debunking Ethanol. But bio-energy as a concept is good. It's basically solar energy, and plants are pretty efficient at converting sunlight into chemical energy.

Actually, I seem to recall reading somewhere that plants are quite inefficient.
According to this website:
"Only light within the wavelength range of 400 to 700 nm (photosynthetically active radiation, PAR) can be utilized by plants, effectively allowing only 45 % of total solar energy to be utilized for photosynthesis. Furthermore, fixation of one CO2 molecule during photosynthesis, necessitates a quantum requirement of ten (or more), which results in a maximum utilization of only 25% of the PAR absorbed by the photosynthetic system. On the basis of these limitations, the theoretical maximum efficiency of solar energy conversion is approximately 11%. In practice, however, the magnitude of photosynthetic efficiency observed in the field, is further decreased by factors such as poor absorption of sunlight due to its reflection, respiration requirements of photosynthesis and the need for optimal solar radiation levels. The net result being an overall photosynthetic efficiency of between 3 and 6% of total solar radiation."

Even the theoretical maximum efficiency of 11% is still a bit less than the average efficiency of silicon solar cells.

Given plants' low metabolisms, I guess they don't really need to be especially efficient in order to survive.

[stevo]

Given plants' low metabolisms, I guess they don't really need to be especially efficient in order to survive.

I think it's the other way around, that plants metabolic rate is dependant upon efficiency of energy conversion, among other things. My point is that there are numerous other design (and I use that word loosely) constraints on a natural photosynthetic system besides efficiency. Not least is the need to be readily constructed at ambient conditions (T, P, humidity, pH, etc. etc.) from, literally, dirt.

Try to make a silicon solar cell under those conditions and see what efficiency you get.

[GravityWaves]

I'll have to dig it out again but I found it fairly easily by googling for the cost of CO2 sequestration and found numbers in that region from a number of US DOE sources. I thought the numbers were low myself but that was probably because they were given as incremental costs for sequestering CO2 emissions from active process (ie the cost of adding CO2 scrubbing\filtering to existing power stations for example) so they would be simpler\cheaper than what would be needed to extract CO2 from the atmosphere. Converting the cost directly to energy is very simplistic too as I said but it's worthwhile to do it just to get a ballpark of the energy levels that would be required. Basically quite a lot really.

By mid August, the House Government Reform Committee could begin holding some of the most significant public hearings ever aired on climate change in the U.S.
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/city/arti...10347/C396/L396
The purpose is not to re-review or pick apart the existing prevailing science on global warming. This inquiry, instead, will attempt to get to the bottom of alterations in an official government policy document made by a former petroleum industry lobbyist then advising the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).

[Stephen]

But bio-energy as a concept is good. It's basically solar energy, and plants are pretty efficient at converting sunlight into chemical energy.

It would be nice to think that energy companies might be researching what to do as petrolium runs out, but I am afraid they're next plan is to simply liquify coal -- America and China have enormous reserves of coal. That might solve energy supply problems, but it is yet another vast source of new carbon dioxide.

Welcome to the Carbonemissioniferous epoch.

Er, isn't coal "basically solar energy" too? It consists, after all, of the remains of plants whose accumulated biomaterial (which later got turned into coal) originated thanks to energy obtained by the plant from sunlight.

As for bio-energy in general...well, since they all (by definition) contain carbon that surely suggests that putting any bio-fuel through some kind of combustion process will probably at some point produce carbon dioxide as a byproduct. It then becomes a question of which bio-fuels produce the least amount. What I'm wondering, though, is whether it isn't a case that the bio-fuel with the least amount of stored energy will produce the least amount of CO2.

======
Stephen

[djellison]

The point is - Coal took millions of years to form, and the CO2 that was pulled out of the atmosphere to make the trees that then became the coal was pulled out millions and millions of years ago. You can't really call it a fair trade, producing CO2 today that was pulled out the atmosphere millions of years ago.

However - with biofuel, you get the CO2 being pulled out by a plant today, and then put back into the air by the burning process in 4 months time. It's a 'contemporary' trade.

Doug