Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld

In 2004, in mid-career, already having grown and sold two companies, and after an extensive investigation into the energy-related applications of nanotechnology, Matt Trevithick joined the Venrock team. Venrock was started in the 1930′s by Laurance Rockefeller, with their first big hit being an investment in McDonnell Aircraft Company. Since then, Venrock has scored again and again, making early investments in Apple, 3Com, and Intel, to name just a few. Venrock recently announced Venrock V, a $600M fund, and they have over 2.0 billion under management.

Matthew Trevithick. (Photo: Venrock)

Trevithick has a personal heritage of innovation, being a descendant of Richard Trevithick, who in 1799 was the first inventor to develop a high-pressure steam engine, and in 1800 built the first full size steam-powered vehicle, called a “road locomotive.”

Last week we had a chance to catch up with Matt and talk about Venrock’s investments in clean technology.

“New electrons,” technology and techniques that efficiently harness and store energy and electricity are a focus of Venrock’s clean tech portfolio, both in terms of who they’ve invested in and where they’re looking to make new investments.

As Trevithick noted, “when we step back and look at opportunities, I think we will see an all-electric future, and there are a lot of ways to get us there.”

One of Venrock’s newer portfolio companies is Transonic, pioneering a new combustion concept that could deliver huge fuel savings. Transonic’s new fuel injector has the “glimmer of greatness” that Venrock always looks for. “The inefficiencies with internal combustion engines is largely due to waste heat – if you had a faster ignition pulse you wouldn’t have as much engine or tailpipe heat, and you would be able to shrink the overall engine size,” said Trevithick. “This is a novel technology, and if it works it will have a novel impact.”

Another company Venrock has bet on is Boston Power, a company manufacturing lithium ion laptop batteries. Boston Power’s “Sonata” line is reputed to charge in 30 minutes, last three years, and have superior safety and sustainability characteristics. A relatively new entrant, it should be interesting to see how these advantages help Sonata in the market, and also what additional products Boston Power may introduce that build on these technologies.

The transition to the electric age won’t happen overnight, according to Trevithick. The evolution of the car provides a good illustration of the challenges facing electricity technology. As he put it: “With electricity, we have always had a better motor, but with gasoline, we have a better fuel. History tilted in favor of the fuel.”

Indeed, if you look at the energy required to move a car one mile, expressed as BTUs (yes, I’ll start using Joules soon!), a gasoline engine that gets 25 MPG, given about 125,000 BTUs per gallon of gasoline, requires about 5,000 BTUs of fuel input per mile. An electric car that gets 3.5 miles per kilowatt-hour, given there are about 3,450 BTUs per kilowatt-hour, only requires about 1,000 BTUs of fuel input per mile. The electric motor is five times more efficient than the gasoline powered motor. But until now, there has not been a good way to store electricity.

When asked about the series hybrid, a technology where an onboard gasoline (or diesel) engine runs at a highly efficient constant RPM, solely to turn an electric generator which in-turn powers the electric motor, Trevithick didn’t hesitate: “It’s the future,” he said. We couldn’t agree more.

When asked about fuel cells on cars, Trevithick was diplomatic: “There’s a lot of interesting technology there, but it hasn’t been market pull, it’s been technology push. To mass market [automotive fuel cells] they have to target primary purchasing characteristics – lasts longer; costs less. Otherwise they [fuel cells] will succeed on secondary purchasing criteria – indoor operability; low heat characteristics – which will make them successful in niche markets such as for forklifts.”

Regarding whether or not $100+ per BBL oil is enough to drive innovation towards the new electrons of the coming electric age, Trevithick was skeptical. “Fuel is still too inexpensive to impact behavior.” But he threw in an interesting nuance: In the USA where the average new car is $30,000 or more, the annual fuel costs probably will only total about 10% of that – not much compared to the lease and insurance. But in developing nations where a new micro-car such as the Tata Nano can be purchased for $2,500, operating costs will be a significant portion of the annual expenditure. In these environments, fuel costs are already substantial enough to stimulate adaptation.

The latest satellite data could suggest that CO2-driven increases in water vapor actually cool the earth, not magnify warming, and equally interesting, the lastest float buoy data could suggest the ocean is cooling – at least since 2003 when they became operational. It is almost impossible to find any of this in the mainstream media, but given how quickly they dropped their favorite green hobbyhorse, biofuel, there is reason to hope. Media is fickle, and that is perhaps a strength as much as it is a weakness. Here’s the data:

Aquabirds: In a report (click “view transcript”) posted on Australia’s ABC National on March 17th entitled “Climate Change,” Jennifer Marohasy of the Australian Environment Foundation comments on the possibility, based on data from NASA’s Aqua satellite, that increased water vapor actually lowers global temperatures, which is exactly opposite to what current climate models predict:

“The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that when you’ve got warming from additional carbon dioxide this will result in increased water vapour, so you’re going to get a positive feedback. That’s what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite…and the first time this data has been able to be collected is 2002 so we’ve got a little bit of data now, it’s actually showing just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they’re actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you’re actually getting a negative rather than a positive feedback.”

Aquabuoys: On March 24th in the National Post, author Lorne Gunter posted a story entitled “Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong,” where he reports on an NPR interview with Josh Willis at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings:

“When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors. So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys’ findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters’ hypotheses, must be wrong.”

We recommend you read both of these articles, of course, but here’s the summary:

From the airless heights of outer space to the depths of the sea, the best sensors we’ve got, recently deployed, are now casting doubt onto the entire global warming paradigm.

Media – perhaps it is time to point your fickle finger at the alarm industry?

In the March 27th issue of Time Magazine, an in-depth article entitled “The Clean Energy Scam” by Michael Grunwald is indicative of how rapid the descent has been for biofuel in the eyes of environmentalists and mainstream media. One isn’t sure whether to cheer or be derisive – after several years of relentless molding of public opinion and public policy to encourage biofuels, the environmentalists and media are now trying to tear it all down as abruptly as they built it all up.

About one year ago we posted “Biofuel or Biohazard,” where we listed eight criteria that – ideally – ought to be considered when encouraging a market for biofuel:

(1) Biofuel cannot displace food crops.

(2) Biofuel cannot displace rainforest.

(3) Biofuel cannot displace critical wildlife habitat.

(4) Production of biofuel must be decisively energy positive.

(5) Biofuel must not exacerbate water scarcity, either in the growing or the refining process.

(6) Biofuel plantations cannot exploit local labor, or exclude local ownership.

(7) Biofuel use should be encouraged in the most efficient applications, such as combined heat and power, and not automatically be directed into the automotive sector.

(8) Biofuel produced using cellulosic extraction must not prevent valuable organic matter from returning to the soil.

The problem is there are still few clear cases where these criteria can be fulfilled. Even growing corn ethanol in America’s midwest, where there is abundant farmland and summer rains provide ample irrigation, is not beyond challenge. Creating a global market for biofuel has raised the prices for all agricultural commodities, and this has stimulated a land rush throughout the tropics. As Grunwald puts it:

“The growing backlash against biofuels is a product of the law of unintended consequences. It may seem obvious now that when biofuels increase demand for crops, prices will rise and farms will expand into nature. But biofuel technology began on a small scale, and grain surpluses were common. Any ripples were inconsequential. When the scale becomes global, the outcome is entirely different, which is causing cheerleaders for biofuels to recalibrate.”

In most of the reassessments of biofuel, critics now point to the massive release of CO2 that accompanies clearing forest and wetlands to grow crops. And if you believe CO2 is the root of all environmental evil – we don’t, such alarmist thinking helped get us into the biofuel mess, let’s remember – then this is additional reason to be concerned. But perhaps more alarming is the potential climate change related to losing tropical forests, which causes land in the equatorial regions to lose the reflective cloud cover that forms over tropical forest, but does not form over tropical farmland. Losing this cloud cover over literally millions of square miles causes drought, it undermines the monsoon circulation, it raises surface temperatures; all in all tropical deforestation could be a bigger driver in climate change than CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuel. Here are recent quotes from Grunwald’s article on the issue of biofuel:

“‘We’re all looking at the numbers in an entirely new way,’ says the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Nathanael Greene, whose optimistic ‘Growing Energy’ report in 2004 helped galvanize support for biofuels among green groups.

‘The situation is a lot more challenging than a lot of us thought,’ says University of California, Berkeley, professor Alexander Farrell, whose 2006 Science article calculating the emissions reductions of various ethanols used to be considered the definitive analysis. The experts haven’t given up on biofuels; they’re calling for better biofuels that won’t trigger massive carbon releases by displacing wildland.

Robert Watson, the top scientist at the U.K.’s Department for the Environment, recently warned that mandating more biofuel usage–as the European Union is proposing–would be ‘insane’ if it increases greenhouse gases. But the forces that biofuels have unleashed–political, economic, social–may now be too powerful to constrain.”

Indeed they are. Perhaps it is time for the environmentalist movement to become a bit less monolithic? A bit more tolerant of debate? A little less sure of itself? A little less arrogant? Because look what they’ve given us – the biggest global wave of tropical deforestation in history. Perhaps it is time for more politicians to stand up to environmentalist conventional wisdom – for the sake of the environment? Perhaps tropical rainforests aren’t the only ecological casualty as we conveniently worry about CO2-driven global warming to the exclusion of everything else – demonizing anyone who dares to disagree.

Expert opinions that blow in the wind is the problem here – we must agree with the “experts” and stifle debate, yet expert opinion changes so fast? Last year biofuel could do no wrong, and this year biofuel does nothing right. Neither extreme is accurate. It is up to every voter and every policymaker to keep their own council, and try to recognize hidden agendas or overzealous tactics from all angles and at all times.

Too many environmentalists assume if you want to be an environmentalist, you have to disagree with Senator Inhofe’s positions on the environment, if not consider him nuts, and you should rejoice and support his being targeted by environmental organizations to “eliminate” him in November 2008.

James Inhofe An American who can still speak his mind.

These same environmentalist forces eliminated the unbowed California Congressman Richard Pombo in the 2006 election, and now they’re taking their war to Oklahoma; to the American heartland.

The problem with environmentalists targeting Inhofe is that nothing is necessarily wrong with Senator Inhofe’s positions on the environment.

They might even be considered rational environmentalist positions. As Inhofe tirelessly advocates, we need more public works projects; more canals, more deep water reservoirs, more freeways, more parking garages and urban street arteries. We need to build more nuclear power plants and more fossil fuel infrastructure of almost all types. Naturally all of these projects need to be state-of-the-art and clean, but along with “green” innovations, we need them in order to help make us energy independent and prosperous, and so does the rest of the world.

Another of Inhofe’s “crimes” is to try to open Yucca Mountain. But why is it so hard to get Yucca Mountain open for business? We’ve dug deep into a huge mountain in one of the most remote, inert areas on earth. Even if there is some kind of cataclysmic earthquake or water intrusion – extremely unlikely – so what? The waste is planned to be within containers so strong you could practically drop them from orbit and nothing bad would escape. Opening up Yucca Mountain and starting to empty and clean up smaller dumps around the USA and elsewhere seems fine to me. How many cubic meters of nuclear waste equate to 50 gigawatt-years, anyone? And commissioning nukes could help save the rainforest from pre-green biofuel incarnations.

Perhaps addressing all of Inhofe’s infrastructure agenda isn’t necessary. But too many environmentalists don’t want ANY infrastructure. By the time anything significant is built, it costs 10x and takes 10x as long, and happens 1/10th as often as it should. Many things desperately needed, like more freeways, are off the table. Projects are backed up and our economy suffers because today anti-Inhofe environmentalists wield far too much influence, blocking and micromanaging all development.

For his failure to recognize the deadly role of CO2 in our planetary future, Inhofe is a heretic, and like all such heretics today, he is the target of an internationally coordinated professional propaganda effort to demonize him in the public eye. His motives, his sanity, and all of his associations are called into question. This is not healthy debate, nor civil; environmentalists are worthy of something better.

We should embrace debate as to what it is to be a rational environmentalist. We should accept both infrastructure proponants as well as global warming skeptics into the environmentalist fold, because the strengths of their convictions may be no less sincere, and their contributions no less valid. And to those professionals who are targeting Inhofe from Oklahoma, an independent voice in the heartland of America, know this: California is also in play, because the truth is stronger than the trend, and it is wrong to try to silence and demonize those who disagree.

Billions of animals are killed every year to support demand for their parts. It might be hard for some to imagine, but ostrich skin boots, kangaroo skin soccer balls and chairs made from a stuffed elephant’s foot are just some of the items available for purchase. Tiger or seal penis soups, bear gall bladders and pangolin meat are another option if the consumer wants to eat a novelty item rather than decorate their home with one.

The practice of selling a variety of animals worldwide for slaughter or for the pet industry is a multi-BILLION dollar business and causes irreversible damage to habitats, wildlife populations and local cultures. Organizations like Wildlife Alliance educate local communities on the subject of animal trade in the hopes that doing so reduces demand for these products while also working with governments to provide an alternative means of income for families whose only form of sustenance is poaching.

Wildlife Alliance has a lot of history: Originally named Global Survival Network (GSN), the organization was created in 1994 by a group of conservationists who wanted to make a difference. Within the next 5 years, GSN partnered with the Barbara Delano Foundation to assist India’s Wildlife Conservation Society increase Olive Ridley turtle populations, established a conservation NGO in Russia to protect the Amur tiger and Amur leopard from poaching and merged with partners in 1999 to become the well known WildAid.

WildAid’s work conserving countless species and habitats throughout the world is impressive. Celebrities such as Jackie Chan have even helped educated the public about the repercussions of purchasing tiger or shark fin products. In 2006, the WildAid board decided to split the organization: “Wildlife Alliance with same U.S. non-profit registration and founding directors conducting field operations in Southeast Asia, Russia, and the Western Pacific, and a new separate organization with the name WildAid conducting Active Conservation Awareness, Shark Conservation, and Galapagos Islands programs.”

A look at the Wildlife Alliance Website shows the level of ambition presented by the organization’s members: Founding Director of Wildlife Alliance, Steve Galster, is obviously passionate about conserving wildlife. He put himself at risk when leading numerous investigations into the black market trade of endangered species throughout the world and has designed numerous programs to protect local species. Galster can proudly say that one program in particular, “Operation Amba”, helped the Siberian Tiger evade extinction.

Another star of Wildlife Alliance is Suwanna B. Gauntlett who founded Wildlife Alliance in 1997 along with Peter Knights, Steve Trent and Steve Galster. Her role is an impressive one: “She and her team advise and assist the Cambodian government in applying a front-line, comprehensive approach to wildlife protection. To date in Cambodia, Wildlife Alliance has saved over 18,000 animals from the hands of poachers and provides protection to over six national parks as well as the Southern Cardamom range in the southwest region of the country.” Gauntlett’s efforts are noteworthy and she has been honored with two gold medals from the Prime Minister of Cambodia for her work.

Wildlife Alliance has a unique approach of looking at the entire picture-not just animals and habitats. They strive to ensure that the local communities’ lives are improved while also ensuring the survival of the endangered animal species. It is a daunting task, but their website provides various solutions.

It is refreshing to hear the positive outlook of Wildlife Alliance and even better to learn about the organization’s successes proving that nothing is impossible.

Ecoworld’s 2006 article, ‘Saving Endangered Species’ explains the issues involved with illegal wildlife trade in further detail.

On March 17th the Tesla Roadster went into mass production – of sorts – on that day production model “#2″ was placed onto the assembly line at Tesla’s Lotus factory in Hethel England (Tesla press release). According to a report in AutoblogGreen by Sam Abuelsamid “Tesla Roadster starts production today,” the rate of production will be one car per week, meaning by now production unit #4 is starting to take shape.

If you want to know what’s really going on with the Tesla, unless you work there, AutoblogGreen is a pretty good source of information. And what they’ve had to say about the difficulties Tesla is encountering speaks to the challenges EV manufacturers in general have to confront. As Abuelsamid reported on 1-23 in “Tesla has a solution for their transmission woes,” “The primary issue that has been preventing Tesla Motors from getting their electric Roadster into full production for the last several months has been the unfortunate tendency for the transmission to self-destruct in only a fraction of a car’s normal lifespan.”

Apparently the awesome RPM range and torque delivered by a high-performance electric motor also requires transmissions with tolerances well beyond those behind conventional gasoline engines. Tesla’s interim solution on their first production cars is to get rid of the transmission entirely. Their permanent solution is no longer to use a two-speed transmission, but to develop a single speed drive-train using a reduction gear, while adding a more robust power electronics module combined with enhanced thermal management for the motor. Once all this is ready, Tesla believes they can ramp up to 15-20 cars per week, and retrofit the cars already sold.

There are a lot of challenges Tesla has had to overcome – a big question is how much time and money did Tesla put into battery technology that is changing rapidly? Does Tesla still have 6,000 laptop batteries in a 1,000 pound package, packing 50 kilowatt-hours of storage? According a white paper released by Tesla on 3-24-08, “Response to the CARB ZEV Expert Panel Position on Lithium-Ion Full-Performance Battery Electric Vehicles,” they state “Tesla’s ESS contains 6831 cells, arranged in 11 modules in series, with 9 “bricks” in series per module, and 69 parallel cells per brick.” Tesla has a lot invested in their battery pack – which according to their data has achieved 118 watt-hours per kilogram. But will a 100% battery powered car be the dominant car of the future?

It is clear 100% battery powered cars have potential for many common duty cycles. The average daily commute is under 40 miles, and at that rate, a Tesla roadster would only have to be charged 2x per week. But “quick recharge” or “hot swapping” for batteries is unlikely to become a practical, widespread solution for vehicles with duty cycles that require long range driving and frequent, quick and convenient remote refueling. This is why the series hybrid (using an all-electric drive train, a short range battery, and an onboard gasoline powered generator) which combines a shorter but still viable battery-only range with a fairly high mileage gasoline-only performance, has the potential to offer a more versatile, less expensive solution for ordinary families who don’t want to own a car that can’t make the long trip.

Development of the EV was hindered by environmentalists who believed the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle was the perfect green automotive solution. All electric, yet able to be refueled with hydrogen quickly and remotely. And we’ve all seen how far that’s come (and what is the battery charge-discharge efficiency vs. the efficiency to use electricity to electrolyse hydrogen then convert it back into electricity via a fuel cell? Hint – it’s 90% vs. 40%). Yet hindered even more than the EV by well-intentioned environmentalists was the series hybrid – because the onboard generator powered by a small gasoline engine was considered an unacceptable compromise even though that gasoline engine might only be activated a few times per year when the plug-in battery-only range was exceeded for longer trips. Technology is a river, politics are only rocks in the stream, and GM, Volvo, Fisker, and Aptera have all announced series hybrids.

Ultimately the next generation car that will dominate will be affordable and offer a no-compromise performance. The Tesla Roadster offers high performance at a price competitive with high-performance gasoline powered cars, and will find a niche. Manufacturers like Think may produce 100% battery powered cars that are affordable and can serve as commuter cars. But we are not likely to see quick charge facilities because even if the batteries are developed that can withstand a 50 kWh charge within minutes, we’re probably not going to see 10,000 volt extension cords hanging on the islands at self-serve filling stations, any more than we’re ever going to see 10,000 PSI hydrogen fill-ups on every interstate. For these reasons, our money is on the series hybrid as the next mainstream automotive innovation.

Earlier in March we attracted the attention of a professional PR firm dedicated to exposing “deniers,” and felt personally what it’s like to have your integrity questioned by people with no idea who you are, or what you truly believe. As we stated in our response, we are not going to descend into hyperbole or personal attacks, and we are going to respect the opinions of anyone who presents a credible argument – no matter whether they agree with us or disagree with everything we write. The truth matters, and often only ongoing debate can reveal the truth.

We would much prefer to report on clean technology and the companies and entrepreneurs who are delivering it – as well as report on the status of species and ecosystems. But there is an urgent need to maintain a dialogue as to the nature of environmentalism, especially since it has suddenly acquired momentum orders of magnitude greater than it had ten years ago. There are a lot of new entrants into the world of environmentalism, and we all need to step back and think about what environmentalism means – what are the unintended consequences, what is the underlying philosophy, and what are the competing visions of environmentalism?

So here is an updated, and fairly spontaneous statement of our editorial position at EcoWorld. Anyone who has a different point of view is welcome.

(1) We believe in emphasizing limited government, free markets, and individual liberties.

(2) We believe “smart growth” is damaging the economy and the environment. Read “Taking on Smart Growth.”

(3) We believe there is not compelling evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing potentially catastrophic climate change. Read: “The Case Against Climate Alarm.”

(4) We believe in most cases, there is no shortage of land, and the hidden agenda behind “urban service boundaries” is to keep building fees and property taxes within existing jurisdictions at inflated values, in order to increase revenues of municipal governments who have utterly failed to keep their employee’s pension and benefit packages within sustainable (and equitable) limits. Read “California Land Use Choices.”

(5) We believe California’s government is using the “Global Warming Act” to create new regulations and fees relating to Lower Carbon Fuel Standards and Land Use, when a small additional improvement to vehicle efficiency could yield far more of the allegedly necessary reductions in CO2 emissions. We think the regulations that will govern new fuel standards and land use will be draconian, subjective and capricious, will tragically undermine property rights, and do grevious harm to California’s economy.

(6) We believe that public employee unions are backing new taxes and fees in the name of global warming to win new revenues to fund otherwise unsustainable benefits for their members. While we believe in the ideals of unions, we believe that all workers in the USA should get the same taxpayer funded guarantees when they are unable to work – social security and medicare. This reform would render public entities solvent again. While some defined-benefit early pensions may be necessary for government workers in hazardous or physically demanding jobs, these benefits should be brought down to earth. No public servant should make more when they’re retired than when they work, for example. We believe labor unions in the government sector should be strictly regulated, because they operate under few of the restraints that force unions in the competitive private sector to be reasonable.

(7) We believe nuclear power is safer than ever and should be part of the global energy future. We believe Yucca Mountain is a safe repository for nuclear waste and should be opened for business.

(8) We believe the “alarm industry” is far, far better funded than the alleged “denial industry,” by a factor of one-thousand to one or more. Read: “The Debate Goes On,” or “Carbon Fundamentalism.”

(9) We believe cars are getting smarter, cleaner and greener all the time, and that roads and freeways – which can convey busses, trucks and personal automobiles – are the best means to improve transit options for everyone.

(10) We believe genuine air pollution – now euphemistically referred to as “collateral pollution” – is what we should be concerned about, not CO2, and that the focus on CO2 emissions has distracted us from this more important environmental and health challenge.

(11) We believe that if anything is causing some elements of climate change, such as regional cases of extreme weather or drought, it is the result of tropical deforestation, not human CO2 emissions.

(12) We believe that since the 1970′s, green snake oil been one of the favorite currencies of charlatans, and that global warming alarm is making them come out of the woodwork. We believe the green mania currently sweeping the world will advance green technologies, but that most investors and entrepreneurs will lose.

(13) We believe that the green bubble, to the extent it relies on global warming alarm, is causing marginal business models to receive investment and subsidies and this is creating vested interests in politically contrived solutions and will inhibit genuine competitive green innovation.

(14) We believe there are compelling, urgent environmental problems, from deforestation in Borneo, to depleting aquifers and endangered ocean fisheries. But in general, we think threats to ecosystems, especially in the USA, are vastly overstated – and that more emphasis needs to go to rational cost/benefit analysis.

(15) We reserve the right to add, delete, modify or enhance all of these points, because we believe in evolving our position in accordance with whatever important new information we receive. Global warming alarmists – can you do that too?

These are some principles of what we like to refer to as rational environmentalism – focusing on the big picture, steering clear of hype and panic, respecting property rights, appreciating the power of humanity and the earth to adapt, and trying to remove ALL of our blinders when searching for hidden agendas wrapped in clean green cloaks.

The Northern Fur Seals will hang around all day in one spot, unlike the Harbor Seals, which is a good way to identify a possible sighting of one. You see lots of Harbor Seals in the Monterey Bay, and at Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco Bay, but in most of these places Northern Fur Seals have been gone for a long time.

Northern Fur Seals have returned to Seabright Beach.

Now the nurseries in the Farallon Islands have been protecting the breeding fur seals, and they’re making a comeback. They can now be seen in the northern Monterey Bay around Santa Cruz. Two pair were sighted off Seabright Beach there recently – they are bigger than harbor seals and have longer faces, and they stick their fins up in the air and leave them there. The harbor seals will swim along the water, stopping intermittantly, but always on the move, but along this beach Northern Fur Seals are lolling in the spring surf, just beyond the ridges of inshore waves.

Until these recent sightings, Northern Fur Seals haven’t been seen off Seabright Beach in over 30 years, according to one observer.

HHO, or “Aquagen” is a new fuel that can be mixed with gasoline and will improve mileage by 50%. Any truth to this? And in its pure state, what PSI does this “aquagen” require for storage onboard and in wholesale transport? Hydrogen requires 10,000 PSI; what does HHO require? How much energy is required to manufacture this gas? What’s the difference between this and “Brown’s Gas,” or “Oxyhydrogen”? In burning apparently HHO turns into harmless H2O. Is this a bunch of green snake oil, or is this another exciting and very real innovation?

We once received an email to the editor, requesting anonymity, stating a 747 jet had been modified to use water as fuel. Then again, on the internet one can find supposedly sworn testimony from USAF officers stating a craft the size of Manhattan emerged from the ocean and flew into outer space.

Ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa1meqFFjjM This is a news video reporting on a Florida entrepreneur’s “water technologies and the powerful forces who want to get their hands on them.” There is a commenter to this video makes this observation: “News anchors don’t do much research and obviously, neither do you. You should study the WFC (water fuel cell) videos on youtube. Conventional electrolysis is slow and costly and generates heat.”

Ref: Hydrogen_Technology_Applications_Inc
Here we learn: “This technology is practically indistinguishable from Brown’s Gas systems. The electrolytic process used is claimed to be more comparable to “Magnegas” than traditional electrolysis, but because the water especially is made conductive, via electrolyte, the 1′st and 2′nd laws of electrolysis apply. There is an ongoing debate as to the novelty of electric arc technology as compared to electrolysis, but for the time being distinction will remain. The generator produced by HTA in Florida is a quality machine that will help the progress of the Brown’s Gas industry, my only qualm is the confusion introduced by the creation of the novel term “HHO” that represents a gas that is practically indistinguishable from Brown’s Gas. The gas has the exact same properties as Brown’s Gas, and the only way to make distinction in on a molecular level whereas “HHO” is claimed to contain a novel magnecular bond different than an Ionic bond, a Hydrogen bond, and a Covalent bond. With the introduction of HHO as a new phenomenon, the long history of the gas is not considered, showing much disrespect for a now deceased Yull Brown and hundreds of other individuals working with Brown’s Gas technology worldwide. ”

But the hype goes on… From here: http://www.fuelfromh2o.com/how-it-works.html “A fallacy out there is that it takes more energy to produce the HHO than the energy it releases. Not at all true, that’s why there are HHO generators available out there. You can produce HHO [at what rate?] with as little as 1.5 volts DC and an amp of current.”

Even if 100% of the usable electricity used in the electrolysis could be converted into usable “aquagen,” it can’t be seen as a source of energy, any more than hydrogen can. It has to be manufactured using electricity that presumably was itself manufactured somehow. If it improves auto mileage by mixing with gasoline, the amount of this improvement in MPG has to be reduced to the extent energy was used to create the electricity required. Is there a net energy savings? Is there damage to the engine? How much cleaner are the emissions? How much do these units cost? Are they practical?

Bottom line – we want to keep our eyes on claims like this, but like the air car, which Wired Magazine exposed in their report “Air Car Caught in Turbulence,” reality doesn’t always live up to the claims of the makers. Regarding the air car: “By MDI’s grudging admission, the prototypes do not yet live up to their promised levels of performance. In fact, in the only published road test to date, one of the cars traveled a little over seven kilometers (4.5 miles) on a full tank of air.”

You can never get more energy out of something than you put into it. We want to try to track all of these novel technologies, but with most of them there is less than meets the eye. Green snake oil has been bottled and sold since the first earth day – the ageless purveyors just added a tinge of green – and now more than ever we all want to find the magic salve.

Newsweek Magazine’s cover story of August 13, 2007 entitled, “The Truth About Denial” contains very little that could actually be considered balanced, objective or fair by journalistic standards.

The one-sided editorial, masquerading as a “news article,” was written by Sharon Begley with Eve Conant, Sam Stein and Eleanor Clift and Matthew Philips and purports to examine the “well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change.”

Environmentalists don’t have to be global warming alarmists.

The only problem is – Newsweek knew better. Reporter Eve Conant, who interviewed Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, was given all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics. (A whopping $50 BILLION to a paltry $19 MILLION and some change for skeptics – Yes, that is BILLION to MILLION – see below )

This week’s “news article” in Newsweek follows the Magazine’s October 23, 2006 article which admitted the error of their ways in the 1970′s when they predicted dire global cooling. (See: Senator Inhofe Credited For Prompting Newsweek Admission of Error on 70′s Predictions of Coming Ice Age)

Use of Word ‘Denier’

First, let’s take a look at Newsweek’s use of the word “denier” when describing a scientist who views with skepticism the unproven computer models predicting future climate doom. The use of this terminology has drawn the ire of Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. “The phrase ‘climate change denier’ is meant to be evocative of the phrase ‘holocaust denier,’” Pielke, Jr. wrote on October 9, 2006.

“Let’s be blunt. This allusion is an affront to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. This allusion has no place in the discourse on climate change. I say this as someone fully convinced of a significant human role in the behavior of the climate system,” Pielke, Jr. explained.

Newsweek Fails Basic Arithmetic

Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, but the Magazine chose instead to focus on how skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades. Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment & Public Works committee, explained how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions. “In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one,” Carter wrote on June 18, 2007. (See: “High Price for Load of Hot Air”)

The U.S. alone has spent $30 billion on federal programs directly or indirectly related to global warming in just the last six years, according to one estimate. (Climate Change’s Carnival Atmosphere) ($5.79 billion in 2006 alone) Adding to this total is funding from the UN, foundations, universities, foreign governments, etc. Huge sums of money continue to flow toward addressing climate fears. In August, a State Treasurer in California “proposed a $5 billion bond measure to combat global warming,” according to the Sacramento Bee. Even if you factor in former Vice President Al Gore’s unsubstantiated August 7, 2007 assertion that $10 million dollars a year from the fossil fuel industry flows into skeptical organizations, any funding comparison between skeptics and warming proponents utterly fails.

Update: Gore to launch $100 million a year multimedia global warming fear campaign. Gore alone will now be spending $90 million more per year than he alleges the entire fossil fuel industry spends, according to an August 26, 2007 article in Advertising Age. (Global Warming Ads From Al Gore Coming Soon)

Capitalists can love nature & environmentalists can love profit. (Photo: Mark Jackson)

Global Warming ‘A Big Cash Grab’

Meteorologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, called the Newsweek article part of a “coordinated assault” on skeptics. “[Newsweek] alleges that a few scientists were offered $10,000 (!) by Big Oil to research and publish evidence against the theory of manmade global warming. Of course, the vast majority of mainstream climate researchers receive between $100,000 to $200,000 from the federal government to do the same, but in support of manmade global warming,” Spencer wrote in an August 15, 2007 blog post. (A Report from the Global Warming Battlefield)

James Spann, a meteorologist certified by the American Meteorological Society, suggests scientific objectively is being compromised by the massive money flow to proponents of man-made climate fears. “Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story,” Spann wrote on January 18, 2007. (AMS Certified Weatherman Strikes Back At Weather Channel Call for Decertification)

“Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab,” Spann added. ‘An Entrenched Interest’ Atmospheric physicist Dr. Fred Singer, co-author of the book “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years,” also detailed the extensive financing machine the proponents of man-made global warming enjoy. “Tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly from the global warming scare—at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams,” Singer explained on June 30, 2007. (The Constitution and American Sovereignty)

“In other words, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest. Of course, there are also many sincere believers in an impending global warming catastrophe, spurred on in their fears by the growing number of one-sided books, movies, and media coverage,” Singer added. For a detailed breakdown of how much money flows to promoters of climate fear, see a Janaury 17, 2007 EPW blog post: (Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics)

The [climate] alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause. Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air’s Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute’s small $3.6 million annual budget. In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund) The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they still feel the need to resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics. (EPA Chief Vows to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic)

Could it be that the alarmists realize that the American public is increasingly rejecting their proposition that the family SUV is destroying the earth and rejecting their shrill calls for ‘action’ to combat their computer model predictions of a ‘climate emergency?’” (See EPW Blog for full article)

As Senator Inhofe further explained in a September 25, 2006 Senate floor speech: “The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by a three-to-one ratio. Environmental special interests, through their 527s, spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election cycle.” (Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming)

Senator Inhofe further explained: “I am reminded of a question the media often asks me about how much I have received in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry. My unapologetic answer is ‘Not Enough,’ — especially when you consider the millions partisan environmental groups pour into political campaigns.”

Now contrast all of the above with how much money the “well funded” skeptics allegedly receive. The Paltry Funding of Skeptics (by comparision) The most repeated accusation is that organizations skeptical of man-made climate fears have received $19 Million from an oil corporation over the past two decades. This was the subject of a letter by two U.S. Senators in 2006 (See Senators letter of October 30, 2006 noting the $19 Million from Exxon-Mobil to groups skeptical of man-made global warming – Rockefeller and Snowe Demand that Exxon Mobil End Funding of Campaign that Denies Global Climate Change)

To put this $19 Million over two decades into perspective, consider: One 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) grant of $20 million to study how “farm odors” contribute to global warming exceeded all of the money that skeptics reportedly received from an oil giant in the past two decades. To repeat: One USDA grant to study the role of “farm odors” in global warming exceeded ALL the money skeptics have been accused of receiving from an oil giant over the past two decades. (Excerpt from article: “The United States Department of Agriculture has released reports stating that when you smell cow manure, you’re also smelling greenhouse gas emissions.” Scientists sniffing out methane emissions from cows sniffing at the wrong end

As erroneous and embarrassingly one-sided as Newsweek’s article is, the magazine sunk deeper into journalistic irrelevance when it noted that skeptical Climatologist Patrick Michaels had reportedly received industry funding without revealing to readers the full funding picture. The magazine article mentions NASA’s James Hansen as some sort of example of a scientist untainted by funding issues. But what Newsweek was derelict in reporting is that Hansen had received a $250,000 award from the Heinz Foundation run by Senator John Kerry’s wife Teresa in 2001 and then subsequently endorsed Kerry for President in 2004. (Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming)

MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen has noted how proponents of man-made climate fears enjoy huge funding advantages. “Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding,” Lindzen wrote in a April 12, 2006 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. (Climate of Fear)

“Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis,” Lindzen added. (For more on the vilification of climate skeptics see EPA Chief Vows to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic)

Loving wilderness and wildlife is universal.

Science Vindicating Skeptics

Finally, Newsweek’s editorial rant attempts to make it appear as though the science is getting stronger in somehow proving mankind is driving a climate catastrophe. There are, however, major problems with that assertion. Scientists are speaking up around the globe to denounce Gore, the UN and the media driven “consensus” on global warming. Just recently, an EPW report detailed a sampling of scientists who were once believers in man-made global warming and who now are skeptical. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research.

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, detailed how he left the global warming funding "gravy train" and became a skeptic. "By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming," Evans explained. "But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed," Evans wrote. "The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role," he added.

In addition, just last week, three new scientific studies further strengthened the skeptics' views on climate change. (LINK) Further, a recent analysis of peer-reviewed literature thoroughly debunks any fears of Greenland melting and a frightening sea level rise. [See July 30, 2007 - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt

Newsweek: A Media Dinosaur

The question remains: Is Newsweek even a news outlet worth taking the time to respond to in posts like this? Does Newsweek, a quirky alternative news outlet, even have an impact on public policy anymore? Journalism students across the world can read this week's cover story to learn how reporting should not be done. Hopefully, that will be Newsweek's legacy -- serving as a shining example of the failure of modern journalism to adhere to balance, objectivity and fairness. Anyone who fails to see this inconvenient truth is truly (to borrow Newsweek's vernacular) a "denier." Background of recent climate science developments: Even the alarmist UN has cut sea level rise estimates dramatically since 2001 and has reduced man's estimated impact on the climate by 25%. Meanwhile a separate 2006 UN report found that cow emissions are more damaging to the planet than all of the CO2 emissions from cars and trucks

The New York Times is now debunking aspects of climate alarmism. An April 23, 2006 article in the New York Times by Andrew Revkin stated: "few scientists agree with the idea that the recent spate of potent hurricanes, European heat waves, African drought and other weather extremes are, in essence, our fault (a result of manmade emissions.) There is more than enough natural variability in nature to mask a direct connection, [scientists] say.” The New York Times is essentially conceding that no recent weather events are outside of natural climate variability. So all the climate doomsayers have to back up their claims of climate fears are unproven computer models of the future. Of course, you can’t prove a prediction of the climate in 2100 wrong today. It’s simply not possible.

Climate Computer Models Not So Reliable

Recently, a top UN scientist publicly conceded that climate computer model predictions are not so reliable after all. Dr. Jim Renwick, a lead author of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, admitted to the New Zealand Herald in June 2007, “Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well.”

A leading scientific skeptic of global warming fears, Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former CEO and director of research for the Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute, took the critique of climate models that predict future doom a step further. Tennekes wrote on February 28, 2007, “I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society.”

Ivy League geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack of the University of Pennsylvania noted “for most of Earth’s history, the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has rarely been cooler,” Giegengack said according to a February 2007 article in Philadelphia Magazine. (Al Gore is a Greenhouse Gasbag)

The article continued, “[Giegengack] says carbon dioxide doesn’t control global temperature, and certainly not in a direct linear way.” Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball explained that one of the reasons climate models fail is because they overestimate the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Ball described how CO2′s warming impact diminishes. “Even if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, the effect on temperature would be minimal. The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint,” Ball explained in a June 6, 2007 article in Canada Free Press. (PM’s summit speech shows Parliamentarians have come full circle on climate change rhetoric)

New data is revealing what may perhaps be the ultimate inconvenient truth for climate doomsayers: Global warming stopped in 1998. Dr. Nigel Calder, co-author with physicist Henrik Svensmark of the 2007 book “The Chilling Stars: A New Theory on Climate Change,” explained in July 2007.

“In reality, global temperatures have stopped rising. Data for both the surface and the lower air show no warming since 1999. That makes no sense by the hypothesis of global warming driven mainly by CO2, because the amount of CO2 in the air has gone on increasing. But the fact that the Sun is beginning to neglect its climatic duty – of battling away the cosmic rays that come from ‘the chilling stars’ – fits beautifully with this apparent end of global warming.” Perhaps the conversion of many former scientists from believers in man-made global warming to skeptics and the new peer-reviewed research is why so many proponents of a climatic doom have resorted to threats and intimidation in attempting to silence skeptics.

It is ironic that Newsweek quoted former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth to promote climate fears and vilify skeptics. After all, it was Wirth who reportedly said in 1990: “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Newsweek Hides Real Global Warming Agenda) It seems that the science underlying the claims of climate fears may not be as important to the global warming activists as their proposed tax and regulatory “solutions.”

Related Links:

• New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
• Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)
• Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate
• Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven “Consensus”
• Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics
• Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming – Now a Skeptic
• Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming – Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming
• Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune’s Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say
• Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical
• MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming ‘Silly’ – Equates Concerns to ‘Little Kids’ Attempting to “Scare Each Other”
• Weather Channel TV Host Goes ‘Political’- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of ‘Criminal Neglect’Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
• The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics
• Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of “Skeptic’s Guide To Debunking Global Warming”

This was originally published in August 5th, 2007 on the Inhofe Environmental and Public Works Blog, entitled “Newsweek’s Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism” and is republished with permission.