In response to reader comments, another revision:
1. This e-mail carries only the summary and various editorial comments
2. The attached is the complete TWTW and New on the Web - all in pdf format and in color.
3. The same is also available in html format at www.sepp.org

The newly-established International Panel to Stop the Incipient Ice Age (IPSIIA) will celebrate its founding in a Baltic Cruise this summer with series of mini-symposia aboard ship and in various ports in a region that was covered with kilometer-thick sheets of ice during the first half of the Holocene - as recently as 5000 years ago. Building on a successful "dry run" in 2004 with co-founder of IPSIIA Dr. Klaus Heiss, we will start and return to Copenhagen, visiting all or some the following ports: Stockholm, Helsinki, St. Petersburg, Tallin, Gdansk, and Oslo in a 10-day cruise (most likely Aug 23 to Sept. 2).

For planning purposes, pls indicate yr interest and preferred alternate time frame. Cost per person will be about $2000, depending on date and type of cabin. We may also be able to get special transatlantic airfares to Copenhagen.

*****************************

New on the Web: British philosopher David Oderberg casts a skeptical eye on scientists and discerns some of the incentives for data fudging and cheating. He does not dwell on the incentives for editors to cut corners in their quest to publish spectacular papers or to satisfy their personal prejudices. I have marked some sentences that seem to have special relevance for climate research.
*****************

Science magazine (Jan 27) does it again: hyping ethanol (in Sciencexpress) as an economic gasoline replacement. Great news! I trust this means we can eliminate all current subsidies for ethanol, incl esp the exemption from motor-fuel taxes. And if, as claimed by the NYT, it is economical now in Brazil (where the govt has subsidized distillation plants), why not just import the stuff?
USA Today describes some of the drawbacks of ethanol (Item #1)
************

The Kyoto Protocol is nothing but a great big con (Item #2), yet some states and cities are adopting it unilaterally (Item #3). Good luck, fellas!
At the same time the courts handed a significant defeat to enviro-activists trying to force EPA to regulate CO2 (Item #4). Yet it pays to conserve energy and other resources wherever this makes economic sense, regardless what one might think about Global Warming (Item #5).

The State-of-the-Union message on Energy drew attacks from both the right and left (Item #6). In my opinion, if the NY Times editorial writers were under oath, there would be grounds to indict for perjury.

Some climate modelers actually have come to believe their results represent reality, a study suggests (Item #7).
***************************

Turning to climate science: An upcoming study (in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, embargoed until Feb. 6) reports on the extinction of frogs in Central/South America. Unlike the Nature paper of several weeks ago [see TWTW of Jan 14], the study reports that no climatic anomalies were observed and climate change is not necessary to explain the extinctions.

Empirical Evidence For A Nonlinear Effect Of Galactic Cosmic Rays On Clouds -- and Climate by R. G. Harrison and D. B. Stephenson, Proceedings of the Royal Society A, Jan. 2006.

The authors observed a correlation between Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) and cloudiness, measured as a ratio of diffuse to direct sunlight. "The diffuse radiation changes are, therefore, unambiguously due to cosmic rays. Although the statistically significant nonlinear cosmic ray effect is small, it will have a considerably larger aggregate effect on longer timescale (e.g. centennial) climate variations when day-to-day variability averages out. ... Consequently, the inverse relationship between GCR and solar activity will lead to cooling at solar minimum. This might amplify the effect of the small solar-cycle variation in total solar irradiance, believed to be underestimated by climate models (Stott et al. 2003), which neglect a cosmic-ray effect."
This paper confirms the earlier seminal studies on cloudiness and GCR by Svensmark and Marsh. In turn, these support the correlations of carbon-14 (a proxy for GCR) and oxygen-18 (a proxy for temperature) observed in stalagmites, as reported by Neff, Mangini, and others. Yet climate modelers still do not include this important forcing, which likely dominates all others.

A NYT front-page story (Jan 29) features Jim Hansen's complaint against NASA, claiming his views on climate and criticisms of White House policies are being censored. My Letter to the NYT (Item #8) comments on his likely motivations, both political and scientific. See here my corrections to Hansen's "smoking gun" paper [New on the Web of Aug.6, 2005], which the Science editors refused to publish. [They rejected it in a little less than 3 hours -- apparently on principle]. Hansen's errors are fairly obvious -- I wonder if it was refereed at all.
***********************

Finally, a spoof on code words and phrases scientists use in reports in journals (Item #9)
**********************************
**********************************

1. Is Ethanol The Answer?

From Science (Jan 27): Ethanol More Energy Efficient Than Thought:
Corn-based ethanol, the plant fuel that contributes about 2 percent to the total transportation fuels mix in the United States, is a more energy efficient fuel than previous studies would suggest, according to a new rigorous review. Alexander Farrell and colleagues closely examined six previous studies, two of which found that the energy used to produce ethanol outweighed any energy provided by the fuel. By correcting a number of assumptions and calculations, including the use of outdated information on production methods and the failure to account for the energy benefits of ethanol byproducts, the authors estimate that corn ethanol reduces petroleum use by about 95 percent per gallon of fuel.
----------------------------------

From USA Today (Feb.2): The pitch to run our cars and trucks on alcohol fuel sounds irresistible: It would eliminate most U.S. gasoline consumption; avoid the costs, delays and environmental impact of new oil refineries; and keep control of our fuel in America and out of often-hostile foreign hands.

Ethanol fuel -- in the form of E85, a mix of 85 percent grain alcohol and 15 percent gasoline-- is the only one of those immediately available. E85, using ethanol made in the United States from corn, isn't a science experiment or pipe dream. It's real fuel, sold now, and 5 million vehicles already are on the road with the systems needed to burn it.

Yet, there are drawbacks, says USA Today:

o Only 500 fuel stations sell E85 and most of those are in the lightly populated Midwest, which grows the corn to make the alcohol. The heavily populated coasts have only a few E85 outlets, and most are reserved for private fleets.

o Only specially outfitted cars and trucks can use E85. They are roughly 2 percent of all vehicles on the road, leaving Americans to replace the other 98 percent with new vehicles that have the corrosion-resistant fuel systems, special fuel injectors, sensors and computer controls, and hardened and coated engine parts necessary to survive alcohol's corrosive onslaught and compensate for its lower energy content.

o You'd have to fill up more often. You'd be at the pump every four or five days instead of once a week. Ethanol contains about two-thirds as much energy as gasoline.

Source: James R. Healey, "Is ethanol the answer? Despite Bush's plea, switching to alternative fuels is slowed by scarcity and the fact that you'd need to buy a new car or truck," USA Today, February 2, 2006.
***********************

2. Kyoto's Big Con

The Kyoto environmental protocol committed nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By this standard, the pact's biggest fans, the Europeans, are failing. And what about the United States, the global villain for withdrawing approval of the accord in 2001? It's doing very well, thank you, says the Wall Street Journal.

Consider the latest numbers from the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen:

o Most European countries have seen an increase in greenhouse-gas emissions since signing Kyoto with great fanfare in 1997.

o No fewer than 13 out of the 15 original European Union (EU) signatories are on track to miss their 2010 emissions targets -- by as much as 33 percentage points, in the case of Spain.

Or consider Denmark, home of the EU's environmental watchdog:

o Rather than reduce levels by 21 percent as the accord stipulates, Denmark has so far notched a 6.3 percent increase in emissions since 1990, the base year used in Kyoto.

o The likely gap between its Kyoto commitment and its emissions levels projected for 2010 is 25.2 percentage points.

How is the United States doing? The Bush Administration has continued a longstanding U.S. policy of pushing states, municipalities and private industry to reduce those emissions that actually lower the quality of air and water.

o The United States thus saw a modest decline in greenhouse emissions of 0.8 percent between 2000 and 2002, according to data from the U.S. Department of Energy.

o Overall since 1990, American greenhouse emissions are up 15.8 percent, but this still puts the United States far ahead of many of its European and Asian critics. And this despite U.S. economic growth (and increasing energy demand) that has far exceeded Europe's, says the Journal.

Source: Editorial, "Kyoto's Big Con," Wall Street Journal, January 19, 2006.
******************************

3. 'Blue' States Tackling Energy On Their Own. Federal Efficiency Rules Fall Short, Some Say
By Justin Blum, Washington Post, January 22, 2006

Democratic-leaning states increasingly are regulating energy use and emissions, working around a GOP-controlled federal government that state officials say has not done enough.

The states are creating energy-efficiency requirements for light bulbs and household appliances, limiting power plant and automobile output linked to global warming, and requiring the use of renewable energy, such as wind and solar.

Leading the effort are "blue" states that voted Democratic in the 2004 presidential election. Even some of those states that have Republican governors, such as California and Connecticut, are making their own rules.

"In a way, the left is controlling that agenda," said Amy Myers Jaffe, associate director of the energy program at Rice University in Houston. "They're just implementing it at the community and state level."

Jaffe and other analysts said some of the policies would have to be adopted nationally to have a significant impact on the environment and energy consumption. But with other policies, such as the auto emissions limits, they said a sufficient number of big states are adopting regulations to make a significant difference nationally. "If all these giant-population states do this, does it matter that we don't have a national policy?" Jaffe asked.

Seven states that voted Democratic in 2004's presidential election have signed on to a regional plan to restrict power plant emissions. Eleven states that went Democratic have adopted, or are in the process of adopting, automobile tailpipe emissions requirements, which face a court challenge before they can be implemented. Nine of the 10 states that have adopted appliance efficiency regulations also voted Democratic.

Requirements that a portion of electricity come from renewable sources have caught on beyond the Democratic-leaning states. Seven states that went Republican in 2004 have joined 13 Democratic-leaning states and the District of Columbia in setting those rules.

Though the new regulations are not necessarily partisan, the activists behind them say their adoption requires lawmakers and constituents who are concerned about global warming and energy-conservation -- issues that Democrats often emphasize.

The Bush administration welcomes state efforts "as long as they do not put Americans out of jobs or move emissions from one state to another or one country to another," said Michele St. Martin, a spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

State officials say their constituents are demanding new limits on pollution and energy consumption. "What is frustrating is that these things aren't being done on a national basis," said Maine Gov. John E. Baldacci (D).

In some cases, states complain that the federal government has failed to take steps required by law. The Energy Department has not decided if it should implement some new rules for appliance energy efficiency or update some old ones, for example, even though legal deadlines have passed for numerous appliances, such as home furnaces and boilers. The department says it is working on improving its performance.

Some Republican lawmakers in Washington defended their record on energy matters, noting that they approved an energy bill last year designed to increase energy supplies and promote cleaner energy sources. Lawmakers said they support allowing states to chart their own course, though they may disagree with some of the measures.

"Unless we get involved in a situation . . . where we make it almost impossible for there to be an automobile market in the United States, I don't see anything wrong with the states being involved," said Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

States are having an impact in a number of ways.

Aggressive action at the state level has forced manufacturers to agree to some national efficiency requirements for appliances. After several states moved to regulate ceiling fans, for instance, manufacturers agreed to national standards to avoid the expense and hassle of customizing products for individual states.

But there are still a number of state appliance restrictions for which there are no federal rules, creating costly complications for manufacturers. The 10 states that have passed their own energy-efficiency standards do not always agree on which appliances should be covered or what the standards should be.

California is the only state with separate standards for hot tubs and pool pumps. Only Massachusetts has rules for residential furnaces, boilers and the fans inside. California has standards for televisions, DVD players and recorders, and New York has taken initial steps toward making its own rules for the same products.

The state-by-state standards are "absolutely a nightmare for our members," said Keith McCoy, the National Association of Manufacturers' vice president of resources and environmental policy in Washington. "They create a patchwork of regulatory compliance issues."

Industry has supported some state measures that require energy generation by renewable sources. Even politically conservative states such as Texas have signed on, at least partially, because supporters think the new rules could have a positive impact on the environment without creating a negative one on the economy.

With the regional power plant emissions plan, seven Northeastern states have agreed to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. Environmentalists had lobbied heavily for the measure as a way to limit the release of gases linked to global warming.

The electric industry opposes the power-plant restrictions, saying the result could be a loss of manufacturing jobs to countries where the cost of producing electricity is lower. The industry argues that states acting alone cannot have a significant impact on worldwide greenhouse-gas emissions.

"There's not really anything that can be done locally or at a state level or local level to put a significant dent in greenhouse gases," said Bill Fang, the climate issue director for the Edison Electric Institute, an industry group in Washington.

Another group of states has targeted automobiles, a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. The rules limiting the amount of carbon dioxide and other gases that can come out of tailpipes would go beyond federal regulations already in place.

Automakers, which are suing to have the rules overturned, say the restrictions would push up prices and reduce sales. But local officials -- tired of waiting on the federal government to beef up its own pollution-control rules -- say they have acted prudently in attempting to take charge of what comes out of the tailpipes and smokestacks in their states.

"The federal standards are simply not good enough," said Gina McCarthy, commissioner of Connecticut's Department of Environmental Protection. "If we can't get the federal government to act, then we have to take action in any way we can."
*************************

4. A Court Gets Carbon Dioxide Right
By GNSirkin@aol.com (1-25-06)

We live in a peculiar time when, if a court gets a big question right, it is news like 'man bites dog.' A decision in December 2005 by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia made news.

Attorneys general of six states and the District of Columbia, and environmental activists, sued EPA in 2003 to force it to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2), the chief greenhouse gas. A three-judge panel found for EPA in July by 2 to 1. The attorneys general then petitioned for a rehearing en banc (i.e., by the full court), denied by 4-3 on December 2.

The EPA maintains that the law, the Clean Air Act, does not list CO2 as a pollutant nor does it authorize EPA to regulate CO2; and even if it did, EPA would not regulate it because the science is not settled.

The dissenting judge held that CO2 creates "the threat of global warming, and its attendant consequences for human health and the environment, and therefore presents an issue of exceptional importance." The idea that a government agency may take an action for which it has no authority because the action involves exceptional importance is a novel invention of the kind which today's courts sometimes adopt for policies they favor.

The scientific evidence, said the majority opinion, contradicts a correlation between greenhouse-gas emissions and global temperature. Consequently, EPA would have acted reasonably in refusing to regulate CO2 even if it had authority to do so.

Substantial variations in global temperature occurred during many centuries before man-made emissions were of any significance. Temperature is still recovering from the Little Ice Age, which began in the mid-15th century. The small rise in temperature which has occurred in the past century appears to be a natural phenomenon, not the result of human activity.

The lawsuits to regulate CO2 were actually roundabout efforts to force the United States into the Kyoto Protocol, supposedly intended to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The countries that have signed Kyoto are more hopeful of blunting America's competitive edge than of reducing emissions. None of the signers has reduced its emissions. Germany, France, Britain, Canada and others have substantially increased emissions. They know that if the U.S. signed, it would carry out its promise. The Senate, initially by 95-0, more recently by 60-38, refused to join Kyoto.

Even if all the countries that were intended to be covered by the Kyoto Protocol fulfilled its requirements, the effect on greenhouse gases would be meaningless. The five percent cut in CO2 emissions, which Kyoto is supposed to achieve, would have a trivial effect on its level and on temperatures.

Worse than the triviality of the Kyoto objective, the developing countries-the sector with the rapidly growing emissions, particularly the population giants China and India-are exempt from Kyoto limits. Their emissions will soon swamp anything Kyoto could accomplish. All that Kyoto could accomplish is to take away a large chunk of the American standard of living.

As ridiculous as Kyoto are the antics of the seven Northeast attorneys general who have entered into a compact, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, to decrease CO2 emissions from power plants in their states by 10 percent by 2019. If cutting emissions in 50 states makes little sense, what are we to think of a regional Kyoto of seven small states?

Actually, five states. Governor Romney has pulled Massachusetts out of the compact. Rhode Island did not sign. Connecticut has plowed ahead: A state legislative committee in December adopted regulations requiring emissions to be reduced for cars and light trucks starting in 2009.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair in November declared Kyoto dead: "[M]andatory emissions cuts are implausible unless technology is developed to make emissions reductions economically sustainable and until mandatory cuts apply to such nations as China and India."

After this bad news, it is time for good news. The increase in CO2 is of enormous benefit to mankind. CO2 is a trace gas, a meager 0.037 percent (370 parts per million by volume) of all gases in the air, which are chiefly nitrogen and oxygen. Yet CO2, though only a trace, is vital to the survival of life on earth. Vegetation will not grow without CO2, which is its fertilizer. Animals eat vegetation. It is the base of the food chain.

A scientist who specializes in the biological effects of CO2, Keith Idso combed the literature of over 1,000 CO2 experiments by 480 scientists in 52 countries. He found that nearly all vegetation (92 percent of all plants studied) grows better with more CO2. Throughout the world, vegetation has become lusher since the Industrial Revolution began increasing CO2 emissions.

Keith Idso's report of the beneficial effects of CO2, a copy of which went to every member of Congress, had no impact. Critics rebutted that lab experiments under optimal conditions do not apply to the real world where plants suffer insufficient water, soil nutrients, and other stresses.

Keith Idso then experimented on stressed plants, feeding different levels of CO2 to different groups of plants, over 15 years. He found that CO2 has an even greater enhancing effect on their growth. With more CO2 in the air, plants' pores do not have to stay open so long to absorb CO2, so they lose less water. More CO2 means more growth under dry conditions. Thanks to CO2, grasses have begun growing in desert areas.
***************************

5. Top Ten Things You Can Do to Save on Energy Use
From Larry West, Your Guide to Environmental Issues (in About.com)

Burning fossil fuels such as natural gas, coal, oil and gasoline raises the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide is a major contributor to the greenhouse effect and possible global warming.

You can help to reduce the demand for fossil fuels by using energy more wisely. Here are 10 simple actions you can take.

1) Reduce, Reuse, Recycle Do your part to reduce waste by choosing reusable products instead of disposables. Buying products with minimal packaging (including the economy size when that makes sense for you) will help to reduce waste. And whenever you can, recycle: paper, plastic, newspaper, and aluminum cans. If there isn't a recycling program at your work, school, or in your community, ask about starting one.

2) Insulate Your Home Add extra insulation to your walls and attic, and install weather stripping or caulk around doors and windows. This step alone can reduce your home heating costs by more than 25 percent, by reducing the amount of energy you need to heat and cool your home.

3) Be Thrifty with Heating and Cooling Turn down the heat while you're sleeping at night or away during the day, and aim for moderation with heating and cooling at all times. Try pulling on a sweater before rushing to the thermostat.

4) Leave the Car at Home Whenever You Can Less driving means fewer emissions. And besides saving gasoline, walking and biking are great forms of exercise. Explore your community's mass transit system, and check out options for carpooling to work or school.

5) Buy Energy-Efficient Products When it's time to buy a new car, choose one that gives you the best gas mileage. Home appliances now come in a range of energy-efficient models, and compact florescent bulbs are now designed to provide more natural-looking light while using far less energy than standard light bulbs.

6) Turn Down Your Appliances Set your water heater at 120 degrees to save energy, and wrap it in an insulating blanket if it is more than 5 years old. Buy low-flow showerheads to save water. Wash your clothes in warm or cold water to reduce your use of hot water and the energy required to produce it. Use the energy-saving settings on your dishwasher and let the dishes air-dry.

7) Don't Leave the Water Running Remember to turn off the water when you're not using it. For example, while brushing your teeth, shampooing the dog, or soaping up your car, turn off the water until you actually need it for rinsing. You'll reduce your water bill and help to conserve a vital natural resource.

8) Get a Report Card from Your Utility Company Many utility companies provide home energy audits to help consumers identify areas in their homes that may not be energy efficient. In addition, many utility companies offer rebate programs to help pay for the cost of energy-efficient upgrades.

9) Be an Informed Consumer Learn more about environmental issues so that you can make wise choices for yourself and your family.

10) Encourage Others to Conserve Share information about recycling and energy conservation with your friends, neighbors and co-workers, and take opportunities to encourage public officials to establish programs and policies that are good for the environment.

These 10 steps will take you a long way toward reducing your energy use and your monthly budget. And less energy use means less dependence on the fossil fuels that may contribute to global warming.
******************************

6. Energy: Three Comments on the State of the Union address
31 January 2006

Jerry Taylor, Cato senior fellow:

The President offered bracing new rhetoric about where he would like to take energy policy in the coming year, but he suggested little more than a bit more money for the same old programs that have failed in the past. In short, it reminds me of the metaphor about 'old wine in new bottles.'
Regarding the rhetoric, it's odd that the President would complain that America is 'addicted to oil.' Another way of putting it is that American consumers are attracted to the lowest-cost sources of energy to meet their energy needs. It's a bit distressing to call that sensible inclination an 'addiction.'
As far as the new subsidies for coal, wind, solar, nuclear, and ethanol energy are concerned, if those technologies have economic merit, no subsidy is necessary. If they don't, then no subsidy will provide it. Those subsidies have failed to produce economic energy in the past and there is little reason to expect that they will do so in the future.
Nor is it the government's job to design automobiles. Although government-funded R&D projects to redesign the internal combustion engine are nothing new, they have never amounted to anything. For instance, while the Clinton Administration was engaged in a similar undertaking called 'The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles' and producing nothing of consequence, Japanese auto companies -- without significant government help -- were busy designing the hybrid-powered vehicles that are now all the rage within the auto industry. When government ties to pick winners, it usually finds itself stuck with losers and often sets the entire domestic industry back.
Finally, achieving the President's goal of reducing Middle Eastern oil imports by 75 percent would be economically meaningless. A supply disruption in the Middle East would increase the price of crude everywhere in the world -- no matter where or how it is produced.
There is nothing really new in this speech as it pertains to energy, except more money for old programs -- the political equivalent of the triumph of hope over experience."
=======================

The State of Energy
NY Times Editorial , February 1, 2006

President Bush devoted two minutes and 15 seconds of his State of the Union speech to energy independence. It was hardly the bold signal we've been waiting for through years of global warming and deadly struggles in the Middle East, where everything takes place in the context of what Mr. Bush rightly called our "addiction" to imported oil.

Last night's remarks were woefully insufficient. The country's future economic and national security will depend on whether Americans can control their enormous appetite for fossil fuels. This is not a matter to be lumped in a laundry list of other initiatives during a once-a-year speech to Congress. It is the key to everything else.

If Mr. Bush wants his final years in office to mean more than a struggle to re-spin failed policies and cement bad initiatives into permanent law, this is the place where he needs to take his stand. And he must do it with far more force and passion than he did last night. o

American overdependence on oil has been a disaster for our foreign policy. It weakens the nation's international leverage and empowers exactly the wrong countries. Last night Mr. Bush told the people that "the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons," but he did not explain how that will happen when those same nations are so dependent on Tehran's oil. Iran ranks second in oil reserves only to Saudi Arabia, where members of the elite help finance Osama bin Laden and his ilk, and where the United States finds it has little power to stop them.

Oil is a seller's market, in part because of America's voracious consumption. India and China, with their growing energy needs, have both signed deals with Iran. Rogue states like Sudan are given political cover by their oil customers. The United Nations may wish to do something about genocide in Darfur or nuclear proliferation, but its most powerful members are hamstrung by their oil alliances with some of the worst leaders on the planet.

Even if the war on terror had never begun, Mr. Bush would have an obligation to be serious about the energy issue, given the enormous danger to the nation's economy if we fail to act. His own Energy Department predicts that with the rapid development of India and China, annual global consumption will rise from about 80 million barrels of oil a day to 119 million barrels by 2025. Absent efforts to reduce American consumption, these new demands will lead to soaring oil prices, inflation and a loss of America's trade advantage. It should be a humbling shock to American leaders that Brazil has managed to become energy self-sufficient during a period when the United States was focused on building bigger SUV's.

Part of the answer, as Mr. Bush indicated last night, is the continued development of alternative fuels, especially for cars. The Energy Department has addressed this modestly, and last night the president said his budget would add more money for research. That's fine, but hardly the kind of full-bore national initiative that will pump large amounts of money into the commercial production of alternatives to gasoline.

When it comes to cars, much of the research has already been done - Brazil got to energy independence by figuring out how to get its citizens home from work in cars run without much gasoline. The answer is producing the new fuels that have already been developed and getting cars that use them on the lots. There are several ways to make that happen. The president could call for higher fuel economy standards for car manufacturers. He could bring up the subject of a gas tax - the most effective way of getting Americans to buy fuel-efficient cars, and a market-based tax on consumption that conservative lawmakers ought to embrace if they are honest with themselves and their constituents. But Mr. Bush took the safe, easy and relatively meaningless route instead.

There is still an enormous amount to be done to find new sources of clean, cheap power to heat homes and create electricity. But regrettably, the president made it clear last night that he would rather spend the country's resources on tax cuts for the wealthy. The oil companies are currently flush with profits from the same high prices that have plagued consumers, and the president might have asked the assembled legislators whether their current tax breaks might be redirected into a real energy initiative. o

Simply calling for more innovation is painless. The hard part is calling for anything that smacks of sacrifice - on the part of consumers or special interests, and politicians who depend on their support. After 9/11, the president had the perfect moment to put the nation on the road toward energy independence, when people were prepared to give up their own comforts in the name of a greater good. He passed it by, and he missed another opportunity last night.

Of all the defects in Mr. Bush's energy presentation, the greatest was his unwillingness to address global warming - an energy-related emergency every bit as critical as our reliance on foreign oil. Except for a few academics on retainer at the more backward energy companies, virtually no educated scientist disputes that the earth has grown warmer over the last few decades - largely as a result of increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels.

The carbon lodged in the atmosphere by the Industrial Revolution over the last 150 years has already taken a toll: disappearing glaciers, a thinning Arctic icecap, dead or dying coral reefs, increasingly violent hurricanes. Even so, given robust political leadership and technological ingenuity, the worst consequences - widespread drought and devastating rises in sea levels -can be averted if society moves quickly to slow and ultimately reverse its output of greenhouse gases. This will require a fair, cost-effective program of carbon controls at home and a good deal of persuasion and technological assistance in countries like China, which is building old-fashioned, carbon-producing coal-fired power plants at a frightening clip.

Mr. Bush said he would look for cleaner ways to power our homes and offices, and provide more money for the Energy Department's search for a "zero emission" coal-fired plant whose carbon-dioxide emissions can be injected harmlessly into the ground without adding to the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere. But once again he chose to substitute long-range research - and a single, government-sponsored research program at that - for the immediate investments that have to be made across the entire industrial sector.

That Mr. Bush has taken a pass on this issue is a negligence from which the globe may never recover. While he seems finally to have signed on to the idea that the earth is warming, and that humans are heavily responsible, he has rejected serious proposals to do anything about it and allowed his advisers on the issue to engage in a calculated program of disinformation. At the recent global summit on warming, his chief spokesmen insisted that the president's program of voluntary reductions by individual companies had resulted in a reduction in emissions, when in fact the reverse was true. o

The State of the Union speech is usually a feel-good event, and no one could fault Mr. Bush's call for research, or fail to applaud his call for replacing more than 75 percent of the nation's oil imports from the Middle East within the next two decades. But while the goal was grand, the means were minuscule. The president has never been serious about energy independence. Like so many of our leaders, he is content to acknowledge the problem and then offer up answers that do little to disturb the status quo. If the war on terror must include a war on oil dependence, Mr. Bush is in retreat.
==========

"Addicted to Oil"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113885042958962963.html

In an op-ed in today's The Wall Street Journal, Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey details the long list of presidential calls for energy independence, nearly all of which required big government's help - and failed. From Richard Nixon's use of taxpayer money to develop "an unconventionally powered, virtually pollution-free automobile within five years" to Gerald Ford's Energy Policy and Conservation Act to Jimmy Carter's creation of the U.S. Department of Energy...and the list goes on...

Bailey writes, "In May 2001, after California experienced a series of rolling blackouts, Dick Cheney's national energy task force starkly declared: 'America in the year 2001 faces the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargoes of the 1970s.' In his 2003 State of the Union message, President Bush pledged 'to promote energy independence for our country.' He also announced his $1.2 billion FreedomCAR proposal, to develop hydrogen-fueled vehicles.

But despite these bold proclamations, the only way we've ever cut back on imported oil is in response to higher prices. World oil prices peaked in real terms in 1980 at about $90 per barrel. In 1977, U.S. imports were 6.6 million barrels per day. By 1985, imports had been cut in half to 3.2 million barrels. Why? Simple economics: Higher prices boosted domestic production and reduced consumption.

And despite more than 30 years of government-sponsored initiatives only about a half-million alternative fuel vehicles roam America's highways, and none are wholly electric or hydrogen powered. Today's higher prices will do far more to free us from dependence on foreign oil imports and spur energy-technology innovation than any federal program ever will -- even a so-called Advanced Energy Initiative."

*******************************\

7. A Global Warming Worksheet

As used by the media, "global warming" refers to the theory not only that the earth is warming, but doing so because of human industrial activity. Measuring average global temperature is not an easy matter. Scientists, naturally, have to rely on record keepers in decades past, using different instruments, to produce what has become the conventionally accepted estimate of a one-degree rise over the past century, says Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. of Wall Street Journal.

But even if a change is measured, how do we know it's human induced? Consider:

o The climate is a vast, complex and poorly understood system; scientists must resort to elaborate computer models to address a multiplicity of variables and feedbacks before they can plausibly suggest that the net effect of increased carbon dioxide is the observed increase in temperature.

o Myanna Lahsen, an anthropologist who spent several years observing and interviewing staff at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, shows in a new paper that even climate modelers themselves, who appreciate better than anyone the limits of their work, nonetheless slip into unwarranted certainty in public.

o Today's debate over global warming revolves almost exclusively around the status and motives of spokespersons for opposing viewpoints, rather than the science and its limits.

Tony Blair and many others recognize that the problems associated with climate change (whether human induced or natural) are the same old problems of poverty, disease and natural hazards like floods, storms and droughts. Money spent directly on these problems is a much surer bet than money spent trying to control a climate change process that we don't understand, says Jenkins.

Source: Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. "A Global Warming Worksheet," Wall Street Journal, February 1, 2006; and Myanna Lahsen, "Seductive Simulations? Uncertainty Distribution Around Climate Models," Social Studies of Science, Issue 35, Vol. 6, December 2005. For Lahsen study:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1891-2005.49.pdf
**********************

8. Hansen's Complaint
Letter to NY Times 1/31/06

Dr James Hansen complains of being muzzled by NASA in speaking out on climate policies (NYT Jan 29). But Andrew Revkin's story makes it abundantly clear that his complaint has a partisan basis. Having used his status as a climate-science expert to campaign for John Kerry in the 2004 election, his criticism of White House climate policy rings somewhat hollow. In fact, he can with some justification be accused of politicizing science.

His complaint seems also driven by the fact that the White House ignores his scientific claims. In a press briefing in June 2005, he claimed sure evidence for a "smoking gun" of human-caused Global Warming, by comparing ocean heat data with calculations from his climate model. But his claims do not stand up to examination. Once his work was published in the journal Science, listing also 14 co-authors (!), it became evident to some of us that his conclusions were beset by both logical and factual errors. Unfortunately, the editors of Science have so far refused to publish corrections submitted to them. Apparently, after rushing yet another "hot" paper to publication and arranging for publicity, it would have been embarrassing for them to admit -- once again ­ that their peer-review process is not working as well as it should..

S. Fred Singer Arlington, VA
The writer is an atmospheric physicist, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service. He is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
**************************

9. A Brief Guide To Scientific Literature

The following phrases, frequently found in technical writings, are defined below for your enlightenment. (Courtesy of CCNet)

Phrase.......................................................................................Translation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been long known…………….......... I haven't bothered to check the references
It is known...................………………………………………....... I believe
It is believed...............…………….…………………………....... I think
It is generally believed.....…………………………...... My colleagues and I think
There has been some discussion.……………………...... Nobody agrees with me
It can be shown.........…………………………………........... Take my word for it
It is proven............……………………............ It agrees with something mathematical
Of great theoretical importance…………………………...... I find it interesting
Of great practical importance.………………………...... This justifies my employment
Of great historical importance.…………………..... This ought to make me famous
Some samples were chosen for study…………………. The others didn't make sense
Typical results are shown.........………………………….. The best results are shown
Correct within order of magnitude……………………………………….. Wrong
The values were obtained empirically………….. The values were obtained by accident
The results are inconclusive....………... The results seem to disprove my hypothesis
Additional work is required.……………....... Someone else can work out the details
It might be argued that.......…………………...... I have a good answer to this objection
The investigations proved rewarding………………….... My grant has been renewed
*************************