My piece on the new report has been published today here over at Canada Free Press. However, here is a taster:

Michael Economides, co-author of the report, states, “For many of us who realize only too plainly the very real dangers and difficulties associated with sequestration, over-inflated claims for CCS have become the last refuge of the energy scoundrel”. Economides adds, “For them we can literally bury the problem and, for some of my colleagues we can even do some good via CO2-enhanced oil recovery. It is our view that neither will ever happen.”

If the governments investing in unproven CCS technology were looking for a new insignia of ‘blessing’ that reflected their faith in the CCS process, the study authors might be inclined to suggest St Jude – the patron saint of lost causes.  After the fiasco in Copenhagen, the war on carbon increasingly resembles one. 

“Sequestering carbon dioxide in a closed underground volume”, is authored by professors Christine Ehlig-Economides, Department of Petroleum Engineering at Texas A& M University, and Michael J. Economides, Department of Chemical Engineering at Houston University.  The full report can be downloaded here.

Take your pick for metaphors. Either the Global Warming Hoax Wall is crumbling - or climate change alarmism is suffering the death of a thousand cuts.

Climategate has been followed by Glaciergate (the Himalayas apparently are not now melting) and Amazongate (neither are the rainforests disappearing leading to growing hurricane activity).

Here for those interested in truth rather than propaganda are links to the litany of recent exposures that have warmed all who are still currently suffering freezing temperatures in the northern hemisphere:

IPCC based claims on student dissertation and magazine article

IPCC shamed by bogus rainsfrest article

Stern report was changed after publication

Stern report 'misused' climate study  and, particularly illuminating...

Philip Stott: Global Warming - the collapse of a Grand Narrative

Two things I want to highlight here, however. First, (and something we have covered extensively in our upcoming book - see previous blogs) the consistent theme of dishonesty and a lack of scientific and personal integrity that runs through the entire IPPC alarmist community. Second, how the mainstream media journos are currently begin to slither out from under their various rocks to attack the badly wounded IPCC 'beast' intent on claiming cudos for the final 'kill'. But let us not forget it was the MSM who MADE global warming alarmism what it is by taking the IPCC side, refusing to report non-alarmism science and data and by ad hominen attacks on those of us who had the temerity to stick with real science and actual data - i.e. science fact not science speculation.

Back in 2000 Michael Crichton rightly predicted the decline and extinction of the mass media. There is much hand-wringing in media circles now about 'paid content online' etc to save their necks. I say, let them swing. Hell, we should be queuing to tie the knots. They say the first casualty of war is Truth. It was certainly true of the media's war on those they dubbed climate 'deniers'. The MSM may have given up dealing in it, but Truth does have a nasty habit of winning out, ultimately. 

MSM. R.I.P. (Rest in Perdition)

Next up came 'Glaciergate' with the IPCC forced to admit it made claims about the Himalayas melting by 2035 central to its 2007 report. Not only did the report suggest a great deal of water would flow (floods et al) but it also enabled millions in research grants to flow too. Not to mention the Nobel Peace Prize that the IPCC won with the 2007 report.

Finally, news of yet another IPCC blunder this week: Amazongate. The 2007 report apparently used the work of a researcher to claim the rain forests would be in severe peril leading to extreme weather and hurricance activity. Now the researcher who did not actually finish his research until a year after the report was published has publicly claimed his work was misused by the IPCC.

What is clear is the IPCC is increasingly beleagured, the demand for chairman Pachauri's head is increasing and even the mealy-mouthed journo rats who for years disparaged the work of people like me in refuting alarmist propaganda are beginning to scuttle from under their rocks and, belatedly, join the anti-IPCC throng - after years of cheerleading for the climate alarmist cause. Something we should not forget.

It really is beginning to look as if the jig may finally be up for the IPCC - but what of the damage they and the MSM have caused by damaging real science and leaving the public with a whole bunch of scientific myths (such as polar bears becoming extinct) to hang on to. That's going to take much longer to overcome.   

The UK's promise will, says Brown, be the highest, at £500 million ($800bn) a year for three years. Mr Brown went on to say, "I believe that when the final figures are made available, France and German will also be putting up very substantial sums." Want a bet, Gordon?

There's already doubt that the EU fund will be matched by the US and Japan and others - and neither do the developing nations think its anything like enough.

One is left to wonder what the money will actually be for - given that sea level rises don't threaten anywhere, the world is already on a downward spiral in terms of temperatures and polar bears are becoming so numerous they are already taking vacations in the Maldives (while they are still above water). Could they be for low-energy lightbulbs perhaps, even though they can't actually be plugged in these nations still having no electricity? Not that LED's are what they seem, either. 

I suppose because the UK is in so much debt the twisted Brown mind sees this nitwit as "giving out of our poverty"? That would be all well and good, but givers usually give their hard-earned out of purpose and to good causes. It is just that Climate Fraud doesn't quite strike me as a fitting cause. Be honest, am I being picky??? 

Sarah Plain has today waded into the Climategate affair with some astounding clear thinking.

This is "politicized science", she says, pointing out the hypocrisy of Obama whose campaign message was to get back to real science. Here is Palin in her own words from the Washington Post piece:

We're not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia's Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold.

In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante.

He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.

Sarah gets my vote for preferring integrity and truth to speculation and ideological social engineering on the back of a manufactured case.

And, as proof positive that the summit looks set to provide a mass of evidence to that end, first up we have the UN IPCC chairman Rajenrda Pachauri speaking thus in his opening address:

"The recent incident of stealing the e-mails of scientists at the University of East Anglia shows that some would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts, perhaps in an attempt to discredit the IPCC."

So, according to Mr Pachari, let us not concern ourselves with the actual content of the emails and the mafia-like 'thinking' behind them. Instead, let's engage in the age-old diversionary tactic of ...shooting the messenger.

Whether it was the Russian Secret Service - if it was, I'm beginning to see Putin in a new and more wholesome light - that ratted on the CRU's internal activities is immaterial. For those of us who are more concerned for real science and ethical integrity than speculative guesswork, we know only too well that the UN IPPC (as history will show plainly) is more than capable of discrediting itself - without any help from anyone.

Obama’s White House has already trashed the leaked British emails as “irrelevant”.  Nor are any enquiries likely to impact what Lord Monckton describes as the world’s “class politique”.  Why? Because too many reputations, too many research grants, too much power-grubbing, is riding on the anthropogenic global warming horse. And there’s because there’s a deal of money to be made by it leading proponents, too. In early December, Paul Cheeser, special correspondent for the Heartland Institute, revealed that Michael Mann has received around $6 million for his various predictions, models and reconstructions. 

In short there are way too many vested interests to admit that the real science just does not prove their case.  But then, as Climate-Gate reveals only too plainly, when it comes to unsound claims for AGW, we are often not dealing with real scientists pursuing empirical truth, nor, sadly, with men of high integrity.

This is NOT about 'science' it is about truth. Yes, science should be about truth. But the lack of integrity at the heart of those desperate (yes, desperate) to save and make their reputations (and not a little hard cash through this) is all we should need to know. THE MORAL LESSON HERE? When you want to make a dramatic impact, computer model your predicitions. Who cares about facts, when so man people are gullible enough to buy into predictive fantasy?

Not only do CFLs contain mercury (a toxic) that means you get out of the room fast should you break one and not only can you not recycle with ease without incurring extra costs, but this latest study shows that they lose on average 22% of their brigthness over their lifetime.

Essentially, they start of dim ... and get steadily dimmer - much like the greens who think they are a good idea, of course.

You can call me 'Al'Ban Ki-Moon, erstwhile leader of the 'free world' and UN Chief, is on the eve of the upcoming debacle in Copenhagen (when the world will fail to agree a meaningful Son of Kyoto) is, it seems, attempting to assume the Planet Gore's role as Climate Alarmist-in-chief.

I/we document said 'takeover' in an article published today at Human Events - go here.

But, for those for whom it may me a 'click to many...here's a taster:

 

“We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet,” Ban pronounced to the Global Environment Forum -- what we in the UK call a ‘Quango’, a Quasi-automomous, non-governmental organization or ‘unelected bureaucracy’.  We are facing “Droughts, floods, and other natural disasters” as well mass social unrest, violence and “incalculable” human suffering, warned Ban.  All of which will result, Ban claimed, if the world fails to “seal a deal” on climate change in December. 

With that the UN General Secretary -- Greenpeace note -- jetted off to Norway to draw attention to the melting polar ice cap where, unfortunately, severe weather conditions led to a trip to the North Pole being put on ice.  Non-plussed, Ban informed his Norwegian audience: “We may have a virtually ice-free Arctic in 30 years”. Ban did not seem to know that the Arctic sea-ice is half a million kilometres greater in extent than it was this time last year. And his hosts were clearly too polite to inform him that their ancestors were growing crops in Greenland over a millennia ago. Nor did Ban explain why he picked the Arctic rather than the world’s far larger greatly expanded ice mass of the Antarctic.  

But, having set the apocalyptic hyperbole bar so high, could Ban keep it up? No problem. “Our foot is stuck on the accelerator and we are heading towards the abyss,” Ban told the World Climate Conference in early September. Allegedly “shaken” by what he had seen in Norway, Ban warned that rising sea levels could threaten major cities and the lives of 130 million people. More significantly, many of the “more distant scenarios” predicted by some scientists were, he alleged “happening now”. For the more investigative-minded present however, Ban failed to identify where exactly. 

GM's Chevrolet Volt due for release late 2010

We live in incoherent times, but maybe someone can explain it to me: How does a $40,000 "economy" car make economic sense?

The $40k is the price GM will reportedly charge for its all-electric Volt sedan -- due out in late 2010 as a 2011 model. Unlike current hybrids, which mostly get going on their internal combustion engines -- with their battery packs and electric motors providing a supplemental boost -- the Volt will be propelled entirely by electric motors and batteries. The small onboard gasoline-burning engine is only there to provide the power to charge the batteries. It is basically a generator -- and is not connected to the drive wheels at all.

The Volt is thus touted by GM as being capable of returning as much as 230 miles per gallon, since it is for all intents and purposes a fully electric car that carries its recharger with it. (The Volt can also be plugged into regular 110 volt household outlets.)

But, $40,000? That is almost exactly what you'd pay for a new BMW 335i ($40,300) and not too far off the asking price of a new Mercedes-Benz E-Class ($48,050). These are fine cars, but not exactly marketed to people who are concerned about their pocketbooks.

Forty Thousand Dollars. That is a lot of coin. Even with a government subsidy (on top of the subsidy GM has built into the car's price) expected to be as much as $7,500 (thank you, fellow taxpayer), the potential Volt buyer is looking at a bottom line price that is right there in the entry-luxury range -- and roughly three times the cost of a new econobox.

Does it compute? Well, let's see... .

For the rest of this excellent piece go here. (Great demolition job, Eric).