Steam Could Replaced Coal – In the most coal maligned place

It’s Jam Band Friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ1dPJt1K1g

:}

http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2010/10/07/google-warms-west-virginias-vast-geothermal-potential

Google Warms to West Virginia’s Vast Geothermal Potential

Published October 07, 2010
Google Warms to West Virginia's Vast Geothermal Potential

The researchers calculated that if 2 percent of the available geothermal energy could be harnessed, the state could produce up to 18,890 megawatts (MW) of clean energy.

The study was conducted with more detailed mapping and more data points than had been used in previous research. For example, 1,455 new thermal data points were added to existing geothermal maps using oil, gas and water wells.

The research team found that most of the high-temperature points are located in the eastern part of the state.

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jne9t8sHpUc

:}

“The presence of a large, baseload, carbon-neutral and sustainable energy resource in West Virginia could make an important contribution to enhancing the U.S. energy security and for decreasing CO2 emissions,” the report concluded.

Western Virginia is not a tectonically active zone, which has traditionally been seen as a requirement for economically viable geothermal power production and has resulted in most existing geothermal sites in the U.S. being located in the west of the country.

However, engineers reckon that emerging techniques could be used to harvest geothermal energy locked in tectonically stable regions. For example, pioneering technologies could be used to harvest hot geothermal fluids, along with oil or gas from the same well. Enhanced geothermal systems are also increasingly being used, in which fluids are injected into rock, replacing natural hydrothermal convection.

:}
More Next Week.

:}

EPA Gets Tough With Downwind Emmissions – Old news but good news

It appears that without CAP and TRADE the EPA is going ahead on its own. Expect Lawsuits followed by settlements as far as the eye can see.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0706/EPA-moves-to-cut-power-plant-emissions-to-fight-air-pollution

EPA moves to cut power plant emissions to fight air pollution

Citing health benefits of reduced air pollution, the EPA on Monday proposed requiring power plants in the central and eastern US to dramatically curb emissions by 2014.

y Mark Clayton, Staff writer / July 6, 2010

The Environmental Protection Agency moved Tuesday to dramatically curb power plant emissions across the central US and East Coast, a step the federal agency says will significantly reduce health and pollution impacts across that 31-state region.

Skip to next paragraph

Responding to a 2008 court ruling, the EPA proposed sharp cuts in emissions from some 900 coal-, natural gas-, and oil-burning power plants – a 52 percent reduction in nitrous oxide (NOX) and 71 percent cut in sulfur dioxide (SOX) by 2014.

The EPA move is intended to bring the federal government into compliance with a decision by the US Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., that overturned the Bush administration’s national Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The court found that rule failed to substantially maintain air-quality standards among states or meet statutory deadlines – and it ordered the EPA to come up with a new rule.

Tuesday’s proposal – which is expected to be challenged in court – is aimed at enabling “downwind” states to develop air-pollution reduction plans based on knowing in advance how much pollution would be drifting across their borders from “upwind” states. The so-called “transport rule” would mean much tighter federal requirements for SOX and NOX emissions reductions for upwind states.

“This rule is designed to cut pollution that spreads hundreds of miles and has enormous negative impacts on millions of Americans,” EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a statement. “We’re working to limit pollution at its source, rather than waiting for it to move across the country. The reductions we’re proposing will save billions in health costs, help increase American educational and economic productivity, and – most importantly – save lives.”

Curbing power plant emissions can have a large economic impact, with the cost to health and the environment from eastern power plants today exceeding $200 billion annually, according to the Environmental Defense Fund.

The EPA says its action will save an estimated $120 billion in health benefits annually by 2014, including avoiding up to 36,000 premature deaths and 1.9 million days of missed work or school due to ground-level ozone and particle pollution, the agency estimates. Such benefits would far outweigh the annual cost of compliance with the proposed rule, which the agency puts at $2.8 billion in 2014.

“This will be one of the most significant steps EPA can take to clean up the air and improve public health,” Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, said in a statement. “This cleanup plan could literally prevent thousands of premature deaths each year and make it possible for tens of millions of others to breathe easier.”

:}

More tomorrow

:}

Coal Slurry Deep Well Injection In Illinois Is Stupid – And dangerous

If this country paid the real price for coal instead of socializing the costs (ie. transferring the cost to the general public) it would be too expensive to burn. If the Coal Industry had to pay the real cost of drilling the holes (tax free zones), making the holes safe (complying with regulations instead of being lightly fined), freeing the coal of its nasty properties (passed onto the consumers of coal), safely disposing of those associated wastes (see articles below) and pay part of the costs of the effects of their uses on the environment (passed on to the end users and consumers) then we would never even think about using that stuff. But they get passes on all of that and they put the public at risk. Oh and they want to put in the levies too.

What the activists say:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Illinois_and_coal

Introduction

Chicago Clean Power Coalition Takes on Coal-Fired Plants

Coal production is a major part of the Illinois economy. In 2004, the state produced over 31 million short tons of coal worth an estimated $819 million dollars, which ranked it 9th in the nation in coal production.[1] Coal deposits underly 37,000 square miles of Illinois, about two thirds the entire state. Recoverable coal reserves are estimated to total 30 billion tons, accounting for almost one-eighth of the nation’s total coal reserves and one-fourth of bituminous coal reserves.[2] In comparison to western coal, Illinois coal is high in sulfur, and even when cleaned the sulfur content averages 2 to 3 percent by weight.[3]

The state consumed over 54 million short tons of coal for electrical power in 2004,[1] producing approximately 48 percent of the electricity generated in Illinois. The state’s average retail price of electricity is 7.07 cents per kilowatt hour, the 20th lowest rate in the nation[4] In 2003, Illinois emitted 230 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, ranking it 7th in the nation overall.[5]

Citizen activism

In a major survey article for the Illinois Times on the coal fight in the state, Peter Downs wrote:[6]

All across Illinois — at town-hall meetings, in federal courts, in the Capitol — battles are raging over coal power, the outcome of which could very well determine the role of the black rock in the nation’s energy future.
Illinois is at the heart of the national debate because in no other state have coal interests pushed for more new investment — with critical support from the state’s governmental leaders.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Electric Technology Laboratory, a year ago Illinois had proposals for more new coal-based electric-power plants — 16 — than any other state, and the plants proposed for Illinois would have the capacity to generate twice as much electricity as even the most ambitious proposals for any other state.
According to the report, “Coal’s Resurgence in Electric Power Generation,” which was issued on May 1, 2007, more than 10 percent of all new generating capacity from coal-based power plants would be built in Illinois. With 22 coal-burning power plants already providing 49 percent of Illinois’ electricity, the state was unusually reliant on coal for its energy needs. Keep in mind that in the previous seven years, only 10 coal-based power plants had been constructed in all of the United States.
A year after the Department of Energy’s announcement, the Sierra Club has claimed “victory” against all but five of the previously proposed plants, but those remaining five are among the biggest of the proposed projects and they would add substantially to the state’s capacity to generate electricity and air pollution.
“We started our coal campaign in Illinois because more [coal-based power] plants were proposed in Illinois than anywhere else,” says Becki Clayborn, regional representative of the Sierra Club.

:}

What the Newspaper reports:

http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x242417430/Activists-raise-concerns-about-coal-mine-slurry-injection-in-Illinois

Activists raise concerns about coal mine slurry injection in Illinois

Posted Jul 17, 2010 @ 11:30 PM
Last update Jul 19, 2010 @ 06:58 PM

Coal mining companies are supposed to clean up after themselves, and the government is supposed to ensure groundwater is pure.

But environmental activists fear that mining companies in central and southern Illinois may poison aquifers by injecting potentially dangerous pollutants into the ground with inadequate review by regulators and no notice to the public.

The state has already allowed the practice at the Crown Mine No. 3 near Girard, and the owner of the Shay No. 1 Mine near Carlinville, which closed in 2007 but reopened last year, has applied for permission. Activists fear this is just the beginning as coal companies develop new mines and restart old ones.

The waste is a byproduct of washing coal. The slurry that results can contain arsenic, heavy metals and other pollutants. The website of the state Office of Mines and Minerals says the material “can be potentially acid-forming and/or toxic.”

The danger is serious enough that the practice of injecting coal slurry into the ground has been curtailed in West Virginia, where more than 100 lawsuits are pending by residents who blame coal companies for poisoning wells.

:}

http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/sns-bc-il–levees-coalash,0,5870784.story

Environmentalists question Army Corps of Engineers plan to use coal ash as levee fix

ST. LOUIS (AP) — A federal plan to use ash waste from coal-fired power plants to shore up some Mississippi River levees drew objections Thursday from environmentalists who are worried that toxins in the ash might seep into the river and public water systems it serves.

The Sierra Club and other nature groups lined up against the Army Corps of Engineers’ plan, worrying during a public hearing that the use of coal or fly ash questionably could extend later to levees along other inland rivers and perpetuate coal burning, widely believed to contribute to global warming.

“If this should turn out to be toxic (after it’s been injected into a levee’s weak spots), how do we get it back out?” Tom Ball, a member of the Sierra Club and Missouri Stream Team, pressed during the 90-minute hearing that drew about 50 people, including electric utility representatives

“This fly ash is hazardous waste, regardless of what you call it,” added Catherine Edmiston, an environmentalist heading an Illinois group opposing longwall mining. “I am against putting it against a major river. I think we need to think about this.”

Corps officials called the injection of a slurry of water, coal ash and lime into 25 miles of slide-prone levees in 200-mile stretch of the river from Alton, Ill., near St. Louis to southern Illinois’ tip the cheapest, longest-lasting fix among several options it weighed.

Yet the corps pledged not to move hastily, calling any decision months away and pressing that the search for the cheapest fix for taxpayers won’t trump public safety. For now, the corps says, the ash-slurry plan appears be

:}

http://www.thetelegraph.com/articles/ash-42552-corps-louis.html

Army Corps considering coal ash to fix levees

The Associated Press

ST. LOUIS (AP) – The Army Corps of Engineers wants to use ash cast off from coal-fired electrical generation to shore up dozens of miles of Mississippi River levees, drawing fire from environmentalists worried that heavy metals from the filler might make their way into the river.

The corps announced the plan last month, touting the injection of a slurry of water, coal ash and lime into 25 miles of slide-prone levees in 200-mile stretch of the river from Alton, Ill., near St. Louis to tiny Gale on southern Illinois’ tip as the cheapest, longest-lasting fix among several options it weighed.

A public hearing on the matter, scheduled Thursday in St. Louis, is certain to elicit questions from environmentalists who consider the use of coal ash – also known as fly ash – a bad idea despite corps assurances that it has been used trouble-free on levees near Memphis for more than a decade.

:}

More Tomorrow

:}

Response To The Gulf Gusher – Change your mind and change your life

http://www.newenergymovement.org/index.php

Ere many generations pass, our machinery will
be driven by power obtainable at any point in the
universe. It is a mere question of time when men
will succeed in attaching their machinery to the
very wheelwork of nature.

—Nikola Tesla
The World We Envision
Clean, safe, abundant, inexpensive energy for all… stabilized climate… clean and healthy water, food, and air for all… beautiful blue skies over our cities… low-impact, sustainable forestry and agriculture… beautiful landscapes unspoiled by wires and smokestacks… recycling of virtually all wastes… rivers running
free and natural… thriving sustainable local economies… living standards and education rates increasing… birth rates declining…
a global culture of sharing… unleashed human creativity…
a new and lasting era of world peace…

With a revolution in energy as the foundation of renewed and loving stewardship of our planet, we can transform our world into a beautiful and healthy home full of promise, opportunity, abundance, and peace for all of humanity.

Our Mission
The New Energy Movement acts to promote the rapid widespread deployment of advanced, clean, and sustainable energy sources across our imperiled planet. This transformation in the way our civilization generates and uses energy provides the best physical means to protect the biosphere, remediate ecological damage, and enhance the health and well-being of the global human family.

The New Energy Movement’s major priority is to educate the public, policymakers, and investors about the need to support research, development, and use of zero-point energy, magnetic generators, advanced hydrogen processes, and other little-known powerful energy technologies now emerging from inventors and scientists all over the world…

The Challenges

Critical and unprecedented challenges now face our civilization, inflicting a terrible toll on our people, our companion species, and the planet itself. If not reversed soon, they threaten to end human life on Earth.

Without a revolution in energy, we will not be able to act with the speed and scope demanded by the climate change emergency we face. With this revolution we will be able to create sustainable and just economic development required for world peace.

______________________________________________

Our survival will require
a vast and dramatic shift
in how human civilization
generates and uses energy.

______________________________________________

Read complete Mission Statement

:}

More tomorrow

:}

Oil Slick In The Gulf – Is Time magazine trying to play this disaster down

Below is the first story of 10 that Time Magazine wants you to compare to what is going on in the Gulf. It is hard to tell their intent here. Are they trying to say, “Look the Gulf spill ain’t so bad”? Are they trying to say, “Look mankind has a history of killing people off with toxics”? It is deeply troubling to me that they had to go all the way back to the 1950s to find 10 worse. That is kinda an uh oh moment for me.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1986457_1986501,00.html?cnn=yes&hpt=C2

Top 10 Environmental Disasters

As the Gulf of Mexico oil spill shows little sign of abating, TIME takes a look back at history’s greatest environmental tragedies

By Gilbert Cruz Monday May 3 2010

ZUFAROV / AFP / Getty Images

The worst nuclear-power-plant disaster in history. On April 26, 1986, one of the reactors at the Chernobyl power plant in Ukraine exploded, resulting in a nuclear meltdown that sent massive amounts of radiation into the atmosphere, reportedly more than the fallout from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That radiation drifted westward, across what was then Soviet Russia, toward Europe. Since then, thousands of kids have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer, and an almost 20-mile area around the plant remains off-limits. Reactor No. 4 has been sealed off in a large, concrete sarcophagus that is slowly deteriorating. While the rest of the plant ceased operations in 2000, almost 4,000 workers still report there for various assignments.

See TIME’s 1986 Chernobyl cover.

Please read the other 9 cases. We have killed thousands over the years. Yet the very people who support these acts want to argue that life is precious. Yah right.
:}

:}

Global Warming Critics Are Being Paid – That’s why there always is an angry post

any time anybody mentions Global Warming in a supportive way. For a long time I was puzzled by how fast and how consistently the Global Warming nay sayers put comments up on articles or blogs or whatever source and how angry they were. After I read the Reuters article  below it suddenly dawned on me that they are being paid to do it. Such prompt and vicious attacks must be a FULL TIME JOB.

Now before you get all back about it. First, there is a right wing conspiracy. The Koch Bros and Massey to name a few billionaires certainly have staff members dedicated to Climate Deniers. But that could only account for say what 30 or 40 people doing it. That is a lot. But consider another supplemental alternative. Exxon Mobile at best guestamate (and they don’t even know really) employs 90,000 people and BP employs another 85,000. Just those 2 companies employ enough people to account for every man, woman and child in Springfield Il. and the surrounding area. What if they let it be known that for a half-hour a day, or like when you have some downtime, it is OK to use company computers to harass climate scientists, journalist who right articles supportive of Climate Change and environmental organizations? Just in one week they could contribute 90,000 hours of cruising the net time and attacks. Anyway this is part of the article that I found at PEAKOIL:

http://peakoil.com/?p=53923

But came from here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63P00A20100426

Climate debate gets ugly as world moves to curb CO2

A schoolgirl crosses a dry pond on the outskirts of Jammu April  23, 2010. REUTERS/Mukesh Gupta

A schoolgirl crosses a dry pond on the outskirts of Jammu April 23, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Mukesh Gupta

SINGAPORE (Reuters) – Murderer, liar, fraud, traitor.

Science |  Green Business |  COP15

Climate scientists, used to dealing with skeptics, are under siege like never before, targeted by hate emails brimming with abuse and accusations of fabricating global warming data. Some emails contain thinly veiled death threats.

Across the Internet, climate blogs are no less venomous, underscoring the surge in abuse over the past six months triggered by purported evidence that global warming is either a hoax or the threat from a warmer world is grossly overstated.

A major source of the anger is from companies with a vested interest in fighting green legislation that might curtail their activities or make their operations more costly.

“The attacks against climate science represent the most highly coordinated, heavily financed, attack against science that we have ever witnessed,” said climate scientist Michael Mann, from Pennsylvania State University in the United States.

“The evidence for the reality of human-caused climate change gets stronger with each additional year,” Mann told Reuters in emailed responses to questions.

Greenpeace and other groups say that some energy companies are giving millions to groups that oppose climate change science because of concerns about the multi-billion dollar costs associated with carbon trading schemes and clean energy policies.

For example, rich nations including the United States, Japan and Australia, are looking to introduce emissions caps and a regulated market for trading those emissions.

More broadly, the United Nations is trying to seal a tougher climate accord to curb emissions from burning fossil fuels and deforestation blamed for heating up the planet.

Other opponents are drawn into the debate by deep concerns that governments will trample on freedoms or expand their powers as they try to tackle greenhouse gas emissions and minimize the impacts of higher temperatures.

“There are two kinds of opponents — one is the fossil fuel lobby. So you have a trillion-dollar industry that’s protecting market share,” said Stephen Schneider of Stanford University in California, referring to the oil industry’s long history of funding climate skeptic groups and think tanks.

“And then you have the ideologues who have a deep hatred of government involvement,” said Schneider, a veteran climate scientist and author of the book “Science as a contact sport”.

:}

“THIS TIME IT’S DIFFERENT”

Scientists and conservationists say some anti-climate change lobbyists are funded by energy giants such as ExxonMobil, which has a long history of donating money to interest groups that challenge climate science.

According to a Greenpeace report released last month, ExxonMobil gave nearly $9 million to entities linked to the climate denialist camp between 2005 and 2008.

The report, using mandatory SEC reporting on charitable contributions, also shows that foundations linked to Kansas-based Koch Industries, a privately owned petrochemical and chemicals giant, gave nearly $25 million.

Koch said the Greenpeace report mischaracterized the company’s efforts. “We’ve strived to encourage an intellectually honest debate on the scientific basis for claims of harm from greenhouse gases,” the company said in a note on its website.

ExxonMobil makes no secret of funding a range of groups, but says it has also discontinued contributions to several public policy research groups.

:}

“We’ve never experienced this sort of thing before,” he said of the intense challenges to climate science and the level of email and Internet traffic.

All the climate change scientists with whom Reuters spoke said they were determined to continue their research despite the barrage of nasty emails and threats. Some expressed concern the argument could turn violent.

“My wife has made it very clear, if the threats become personalized, I cease to interact with the media. We have kids,” said one scientist who did not want to be identified.

(Additional reporting by Alister Doyle in Oslo; Editing by Megan Goldin)

:}

Please see the entire article. It is amazing in its even handedness but here is the kicker for me. 2 hours later at 9:58 this comment pops up:

where is the proof? how can you prove that carbon dioxide making up 2% of the warming gasses is responsible for 100% of the temperature change? You can’t. there is no way you can show that evil industrialism is hurting the precious gaia. but you can move to a north korean work camp and unplug from modern industrialist society. Get a new guilt free life in a NPRK work camp! get close to nature under a steel ball tipped leather whip!

boomba Report As Abusive

:}

3rd Street Corridor In Springfield IL – I haven’t done local stuff lately

But since I picked on St. John’s yesterday today we bring you the Rail Road Companies. In particular the community investing and protecting Union Pacific.

:}

I posted page one here. You can call or email them if you want the whole thing. If you click on the image it will get a little bigger. My choices for posting were not great. Reeeal Big so that only part of it fit on the page or mid range which looks like the above.

:}

Massey Mine Accident Could Have Been Prevented – But not by Blankenship

It’s jam band friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_ciiCyxOJA&playnext_from=TL&videos=Oix0MvcQ62o&feature=rec-LGOUT-exp_fresh%2Bdiv-1r-2-HM

He was too busy buying judges and worse yet funding Climate change deniers and Cap and Trade deniers. And I am not the only one to think so:

http://www.grist.org/article/don-blankenship-seventh-scariest-person-in-america/

Don Blankenship: Seventh scariest person in America

Massey Energy CEO is a really bad dude

avatar for David Roberts

by David Roberts

24 Oct 2006 4:40 PM

The venerable print magazine Old Trout was recently relaunched with a splashy issue on “The Thirteen Scariest Americans.” I was asked to write up the scariest American from an environmental point of view.

The choice was not difficult. The scariest polluter in the U.S. is Don Blankenship, CEO of Massey Energy. The guy is evil, and I don’t use that word lightly.

The issue is out now. (Look for it on a newsstand near you!) The folks at Old Trout have given me permission to publish an expanded version of the piece after a suitable period of exclusivity. So watch for that at the beginning of December.

In the meantime, check out three things.

First, there’s this longish New York Times piece on Blankenship from Sunday. In the usual style of mainstream reportage, it is studiously neutral in tone, woefully downplaying the environmental destruction Massey does and the thuggish tactics Blankenship has imposed. But you can get a pretty accurate general picture of the guy.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHNZVrxEts&feature=related )

:}

This is actually a repost:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/09/rolling-stone-climate-killers-polluters-and-science-deniers-rupert-murdoch-warren-buffett-john-mccain/

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633524/the_climate_killers/

The Coal Baron
Don Blankenship
CEO, Massey Energy

In an age when most CEOs are canny enough to at least pay lip service to the realities of climate change, Blankenship stands apart as corporate America’s most unabashed denier. Global warming, he insists, is nothing but “a hoax and a Ponzi scheme.” His fortune depends on such lies: Massey Energy, the nation’s fourth-largest coal-mining operation, unearths more than 40 million tons of the fossil fuel each year — often by blowing the tops off of Appalachian mountains.

The country’s highest-paid coal executive, Blankenship is a villain ripped straight from the comic books: a jowly, mustache-sporting, union-busting coal baron who uses his fortune to bend politics to his will. He recently financed a $3.5 million campaign to oust a state Supreme Court justice who frequently ruled against his company, and he hung out on the French Riviera with another judge who was weighing an appeal by Massey. “Don Blankenship would actually be less powerful if he were in elected office,” Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia once observed. “He would be twice as accountable and half as feared.”

On the national level, Blankenship enjoys a position of influence on the board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has led the fight to kill climate legislation. He enjoys inveighing against the “greeniacs” — including Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Al Gore — who are “taking over the world.” And he has even taken to tweeting about climate change: “We must demand that more coal be burned to save the Earth from global cooling.”

In more unguarded moments, however, Blankenship confesses that his over-the-top rhetoric is strategic. “If it weren’t for guys like me,” he says, “the middle would be further to the left.” He also admits that his efforts to block climate legislation are ultimately self-serving: “It would probably cut our business in half”.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsS811o21-k&feature=related )

:}

yah that kind of guy…

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3nCI_9uQfI&feature=related )

:}

Global Warming Is Not A Crisis – According to the New York Times

I keep wanting to make the point that medicine is one of our biggest energy wasters but the world keeps yanking my chain like this:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/on-the-energy-gap-and-climate-crisis/

The one I’d choose is much like the one stated by  Richard Somerville of the University of California, San Diego, during a climate debate several years ago over the proposition that “ Global Warming is Not a Crisis.”

:}

But then little things like this pop up the same day:

http://www.ecanadanow.com/science/2010/04/08/global-warming-is-still-an-issue-two-glaciers-disappear/

Global Warming is Still an Issue, Two Glaciers Disappear

Posted by Staff on Apr 8th, 2010 /

Two more glaciers have disappeared from Glacier National Park. There are 25 glaciers left and scientists believe they will be gone by the end of the decade. This brings the problem of Global Warming back into the news after the recent email scandals, that implied that many in the Global Warming movement were manipulating statistics.

The loss of the glaciers in the northwestern Montana park is attributed to warmer temperatures. These 2 glaciers fell below the measure used by scientists to determine if they can be called glaciers. This number is 25 acres. When the glacier falls below this number, it is no longer considered a glacier. The largest glacier in the park, called the “Harrison Glacier” covers 465 acres.

The decrease of glaciers means there is less water in the rivers of the area. Less water also contributes to an increase in fires and a decrease in fish. It is not certain what is causing the rise in temperatures causing the shrinking of the glaciers. 90% of glaciers worldwide are now said to be shrinking. Alaska, the Alps and the Andes are leading the world in the loss of glaciers. Scientist have toyed with the idea of covering glaciers in plastic sheeting to keep them cooler.

:}

Isn’t life pathetic sometimes…

:}

Scientists Are Such Wimps – No guns blazing here

This is a pretty simple (dare I say it) observation. Instead of scaring the crap out of people and tagging the polluters as the killers that they are, scientist must haggle over DATA. That’s the way to get the high school graduates all excited. Even college graduates in say, Education, Physical Ed., Social Work and other softer occupations at the college level don’t believe in something directly observable like evolution, let alone something arcane as climate destabilization. Don’t even get me started about all those people who get a “religious education”.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/235084

Sharon Begley

Their Own Worst Enemies

Why scientists are losing the PR wars.

Published Mar 18, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Mar 29, 2010

It’s a safe bet that the millions of Americans who have recently changed their minds about global warming—deciding it isn’t happening, or isn’t due to human activities such as burning coal and oil, or isn’t a serious threat—didn’t just spend an intense few days poring over climate-change studies and decide, holy cow, the discretization of continuous equations in general circulation models is completely wrong! Instead, the backlash (an 18-point rise since 2006 in the percentage who say the risk of climate change is exaggerated, Gallup found this month) has been stoked by scientists’ abysmal communication skills, plus some peculiarly American attitudes, both brought into play now by how critics have spun the “Climategate” e-mails to make it seem as if scientists have pulled a fast one.

Scientists are lousy communicators. They appeal to people’s heads, not their hearts or guts, argues Randy Olson, who left a professorship in marine biology to make science films. “Scientists think of themselves as guardians of truth,” he says. “Once they have spewed it out, they feel the burden is on the audience to understand it” and agree.

That may work if the topic is something with no emotional content, such as how black holes form, but since climate change and how to address it make people feel threatened, that arrogance is a disaster. Yet just as smarter-than-thou condescension happens time after time in debates between evolutionary biologists and proponents of intelligent design (the latter almost always win), now it’s happening with climate change. In his 2009 book, Don’t Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style, Olson recounts a 2007 debate where a scientist contending that global warming is a crisis said his opponents failed to argue in a way “that the people here will understand.” His sophisticated, educated Manhattan audience groaned and, thoroughly insulted, voted that the “not a crisis” side won.

Like evolutionary biologists before them, climate scientists also have failed to master “truthiness” (thank you, Stephen Colbert), which their opponents—climate deniers and creationists—wield like a shiv. They say the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political, not a scientific, organization; a climate mafia (like evolutionary biologists) keeps contrarian papers out of the top journals; Washington got two feet of snow, and you say the world is warming?

There is less backlash against climate science in Europe and Japan, and the U.S. is 33rd out of 34 developed countries in the percentage of adults who agree that species, including humans, evolved. That suggests there is something peculiarly American about the rejection of science. Charles Harper, a devout Christian who for years ran the program bridging science and faith at the Templeton Foundation and who has had more than his share of arguments with people who view science as the Devil’s spawn, has some hypotheses about why that is. “In America, people do not bow to authority the way they do in England,” he says. “When the lumpenproletariat are told they have to think in a certain way, there is a backlash,” as with climate science now and, never-endingly, with evolution. (Harper, who studied planetary atmospheres before leaving science, calls climate scientists “a smug community of true believers.”)

:}