A US$13-billion business

Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post
May 14, 2010

Is it any wonder that the BP calamity occurred? Here’s what has been preoccupying its environmental regulator, the Minerals Management Service, ever since MMS was established in 1982.

“Record for number of lease sales in a year,” MMS crowed, referring to its success in 1983. “Greatest high bid dollar amount received in a lease sale,” it added, displaying its haul to the very last digit: “US$3,469,214,969 in the Central Gulf of Mexico.” In 1984, more records: “Most tracts offered at a lease sale (8,868 tracts in Eastern Gulf of Mexico)”; “Record number of exploratory wells drilled in a year (597)”; and “Record number of platform installations in a year (229).”

Year after year, this agency went from one business milestone to another, seeing the accomplishments of its leaseholders — companies like BP, Exxon Mobil, and Texaco — as its own. In 1996, it cheered the “Well drilled in deepest water (world record well at 2,324 meters, or 7,625 feet)” and the “Deepest well drilled from a semi-submersible at 7,712 meters (25,450 feet).” In 2000, it achieved the “World’s tallest freestanding structure Installed in 535 m (1,754 ft) of water” and the “World’s deepest water drilling and production platform.” In 2001, it boasted the “largest find to date world deepwater drilling record set at 9,687 feet.” In 2002, it “Established world water depth record for well production and laying a pipeline at 7,209 feet” and announced that “The tallest self standing conductor.”

This all translates into cash. Last year royalties approached US$13-billion, making this agency an important source of revenue for the government, its take second only to that of the Internal Revenue Service.

The federal government, in turn, depends on MMS to meet numerous needs, everything from funding national parks to dams, canals, and other land and water-related projects. After the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, the government asked MMS to crank up its lease-sales effort to come up with the cash needed to help restore New Orleans. To squeeze more money still out of the Gulf by maximizing the amount of drilling underway, the MMS offers leases on the cheap in marginal drilling areas.

MMS is in the business of making money for government — it is, in effect, the continent’s largest exploiter of natural resources, as was intended when the U.S. government created it as a cash cow. By MMS’s 25th anniversary in 2007, its director summarized with pride his agency’s accomplishments: “Since our formation in 1982, MMS has overseen the production of 11 billion barrels of oil and 116 trillion cubic feet of natural gas,” he stated, and “collected and remitted to the U.S. Treasury, the Indian Tribes and the States their shares of nearly US$165-billion dollars.”

This gung-ho money-making agency of 1,700 employees is overwhelmingly focused on its bottom line — setting the royalty rates it charges the oil and gas drillers, ensuring it collects the royalties that are its due, creating financial instruments to squeeze more value out of its royalties, delivering the money to its government masters. MMS also has a sideline — it regulates its leaseholders to ensure safety. To acquit its responsibilities in this sideline — overseeing the safe operations of 2600 companies operating 4,000 drilling platforms and 30,000 wells in 43 million leased acres over an expanse of 1.76 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf alone — it hires some 60 inspectors. Put another way, it might almost not bother.

Because of the conflict of interest — numerous reports indicate MMS downplays safety concerns to maximize its take — the federal government is now proposing to beef up the number of inspectors and place them in an independent safety-inspection division within MMS. This would do nothing to change the fact that MMS would still be regulating itself, or that safety would still be subject to political trade-offs. Governments are not disinterested parties looking out for the public good — first and foremost, they look out for themselves. In the case of the BP spill disaster, for example, the federal government suffers few financial concerns — thanks to its Oil Pollution Act 1990, it inoculated itself from the pain that citizens and private businesses in the Gulf will endure.

The Oil Pollution Act 1990 determines liability for accidents such as the one now underway in the Gulf of Mexico. In passing it, the federal government took pains to accomplish two ends. First, to save itself from the billions in cleanup costs that an oil spill could cause, the federal government held oil companies and drillers fully liable here.

And second, to make sure that the oil industry wouldn’t be scared off by the much greater potential damage to citizens and private businesses from a massive oil spill — the costs to the fisheries, tourist industry, and private landowners — the federal government eradicated the private sector’s property rights by denying it fair compensation for its economic losses: The Oil Pollution Act 1990 limited the liability of the oil and gas industry to these private parties to US$75-million in the event of a spill, or a few cents on the dollar in the event of a worst-case accident.

Governments make for good regulators, but not when they regulate themselves. To provide the independent, arms-length regulation that the public deserves, there is but one option: Governments must get out of the private sector by privatizing their commercial holdings. A privatization of the Outer Continental Shelf would be a good place to start.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.

Read "U.S. law disaster", another article from Lawrence Solomon concerning the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  

Read the sources for this column.

Posted in Energy Probe News, Fossil Fuels | Leave a comment

A US$13-billion business

(May 14, 2010) Is it any wonder that the BP calamity occurred? Here’s what has been preoccupying its environmental regulator, the Minerals Management Service, ever since MMS was established in 1982. Continue reading →

Posted in Oil | Leave a comment

La dolce vita: green and unemployed

Question: Would you pay more than a million dollars for a job? Probably not. Let’s rephrase that question: would you spend more than a million dollars of someone else’s money for a job? If you’re a politician in Italy, the answer is a resounding yes.

According to researchers Carlo Stagnaro and Luciano Lavecchia from the Italian think tank Istituto Bruno Leoni, subsidies for wind and solar power projects in Italy will cost Italian consumers €566,000 (CAD 716,000) to €1.26 million (CAD 1.62 million) per green job.

Sadly, Italians are already accustomed to paying a premium for their electricity—so tacking on more subsidies to politically-favored green projects likely won’t be controversial.

Green energy is already subsidized through a premium on electricity bills for Italian consumers—amounting to about 4.3% of the average bill and partly exlaining why electricity costs in Italy are some of most expensive across Europe. Industrial consumers are hit particularly hard—in 2008 they paid at least 25% above the EU average for electricity.

Yet, it gets worse, as each “green” job costs as much as 4.8 jobs in the entire economy, or 6.9 jobs in the industrial sector.

More worrying still is that politicians in Italy seem intent on forging ahead with green energy policies when, according to Mr. Stagnaro and Mr. Lavecchia there “is no conclusive evidence” whether such policies will produce a positive or negative effect on GDP created vs. GDP destroyed.

To highlight this problem they note that, to date, the National Institute for Statistics (ISTAT) does not collect numbers for people working in the renewable energy sector. Instead, researchers investigating politicians’ claims on creating “green” jobs have to rely on figures from a range of resources.

“This lack of transparency should ring a bell about the accountability of this program (green subsidies for renewable energy), which is worth billions of euros,” they write.

Mr. Stagnaro and Mr. Lavecchia, on the other hand, are fairly certain that a subsidy-driven increase in green jobs will likely have two effects. First it willl result in job losses from the crowding out of cheaper and more conventional forms of energy generation. Second, there will be job losses in energy intensive sectors—a direct result of higher energy prices required to support such subsidies.

So much for the sweet life.

Energy Probe is a keen supporter of renewable energy. We believe renewable energy has the ability to diversify our electricity supply, while allowing for more decentralized sources of power for consumers. But we’re not in favour of throwing massive subsides at forms of energy that are not technically or economically feasible.

Read the previous gangrene economy report, "Green jobs are the new cash for clunkers" here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

U.S. law disaster

Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post
May 8, 2010

Washington laid the groundwork for the Gulf oil spill by letting the offshore oil industry dodge its liabilities.

BP deserves to be excoriated for contaminating the Gulf of Mexico. Preoccupied with phony multi-million-dollar PR campaigns to cast itself as green and “Beyond Petroleum,” it failed to focus on the actual multi-billion-dollar environmental catastrophe that could come of a worst-case blow-out.

But BP’s bad conduct is as nothing compared to that of the real villain in this piece: the U.S. federal government.

I blame the U.S. government not because, as the owner of the Outer Continent Shelf where the accident occurred, it bears ultimate responsibility for activities that occur on its property. Neither do I blame the U.S. because it actively solicited bids from oil firms for drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. Accidents happen, despite best efforts. Spacecraft can explode. Olympic lugers can crash. Nuclear plants can melt down. Coal mines can collapse. Elevators can plummet. Hydro dams can fail.

I blame the U.S. government not because an accident happened but because it failed to ensure that BP — along with every other firm drilling off the U.S. coast — had every incentive to avoid an accident. To the contrary, the federal government told the firms drilling in submerged lands under federal jurisdiction that they needn’t be unduly troubled about the consequences of a worst-case scenario on their bottom line.

“Do your best to avoid an accident,” the U.S. in effect said, “but don’t worry about going the extra mile. If the worst occurs, we’ll backstop you. You’ll never have to be fully accountable for the damage an accident does, your shareholders will never need to worry that an accident will bankrupt you.”

The U.S. provides this backstop through its Oil Pollution Act 1990, which limits the liability of offshore oil firms to US$75-million plus cleanup costs, and then even absolves the oil firms of responsibility if the accident occurs as a result of an act of God, an act of war or the negligence of a third party. In the case of the Gulf of Mexico disaster, the third party could turn out to be the company whose rig BP leased: Transocean Ltd.

BP is already on record disavowing responsibility, since it was Transocean’s Deepwater Horizon rig that exploded and sank last month. As BP’s chief executive, Tony Hayward, told NBC, “We are responsible not for the accident but we are responsible for the oil and for dealing with it and cleaning the situation up.”

While BP has publicly agreed to pay “all necessary and appropriate cleanup costs” as well as “legitimate and objectively verifiable claims for other loss and damage caused by the spill,” it will ultimately be up to the courts to determine what is “necessary,” “appropriate” and “legitimate.” If Transocean was indeed solely responsible for the accident, and if BP decides to use the U.S.-government-created loopholes designed to entice offshore oil exploration, BP could be off the hook for the lion’s share of damages associated with its drilling.

I do not blame BP, or any firm, for obeying both the letter and the spirit of the law. But I do blame the U.S. government for creating a bad law that dilutes the strict liability needed to focus the mind of any company operating in a vulnerable environment. Had BP faced unlimited liability, putting its entire market capitalization of $150-billion at risk, financial prudence would have required it to consider robust prevention and contingencies in the event of a catastrophic blowout.

BP would have examined the potential liability of destroying the area’s fisheries and shrimperies, of destroying its tourism and other industries, and then weighed the cost of having backup safety systems in place to avert a worst-case disaster. Because an immense liability was at play, any insurers brought in to protect BP would have done their own assessment of liabilities, and based their premiums on their judgment of the robustness of BP’s preparedness. The experimental measures that BP is now desperately employing — such as the cofferdam containment dome it yesterday dropped over the wellhead — would have been tested and retested well in advance.

As a result of a sober assessment of the full risks and benefits, BP and the insurers might have determined that the risks of drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf were too high, and abandoned the project. Or, more likely because of the extraordinarily high value of the oil in the Gulf, BP would have demanded redundancy in fail-safe measures in a rig, and BP would have devised reliable emergency containment systems to rapidly deploy in the event the fail-safe systems failed.

As it was, BP didn’t need to go through any of these precautionary exercises. The consequences to BP of presiding over what could potentially have become the greatest oil spill in human history, one with untold potential to wreak economic and environmental harm, was so trifling a matter to BP’s bottom line that BP didn’t even need to get insurance — it decided to self-insure, to save itself the cost of the insurance premium. The mismatch between the consequences of a catastrophe to BP and the consequences to society at large was entirely a function of U.S. law.

The U.S. law has other untoward consequences still. Beyond the U.S. portion of the Outer Continental Shelf lie oilfields owned by other nations and leased to foreign companies. If an accident occurs there, the ecology, people and industries of the Gulf could become every bit as much at risk. The best protection for the Gulf is a safety culture, and a safety infrastructure, that a regime of strict liability would have inculcated. As it is, thanks to an unprincipled U.S. federal law, there is no safety infrastructure and no safety culture and no reason to think an even worse catastrophe couldn’t occur in the future.

LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.

Posted in Energy Probe News | Leave a comment

U.S. law disaster

(May 8, 2010) Washington laid the groundwork for the Gulf oil spill by letting the offshore oil industry dodge its liabilities. Continue reading →

Posted in Oil | Leave a comment

Aldyen Donnelly: My carbon emission reductions are better than yours

(May 6, 2010) I agree that climate change and national greenhouse gas emission reduction targets should be on the table for discussion at the G8 and G20 meetings.

I am appalled that the EU27’s current commitment is to reduce GHGs only 2.7% from 2005 levels by 2020. By comparison, Canada and the US have committed to cut GHGs 17% from 2005 levels by 2020.

The EU negotiators disguise the inadequacy of their 2020 reduction commitment by consistently referring to a 1990 baseline. The problem is that while EU27 GHG emissions crashed between 1990 and 1995, they have grown continuously since then.

The fall in EU27 GHGs between 1990 and 1995 had 3 sources: (1) the fall of the Berlin wall and the related immediate shut-down of very old, inefficient and previously highly subsidized eastern European industry and power plants, (2) the massive financial crisis that hit Sweden, Norway and Denmark in 1990 causing 4% to 8% absolute reductions in the output of those economies and from which those nations have yet to fully recover, (3) mad cow disease immediately following a European hoof and mouth epidemic, which combined to result in a 40% absolute reduction in European livestock production and processing between 1990 and 1997 and from which the sector has yet to rebound.

In 1997 in Kyoto, the EU27 signed on to an aggregate cap on their GHGs that was 14% ABOVE the member states’ aggregate 1995 actual emissions.

Even though Canada has made no effort to comply with our Kyoto commitment (I say with great regret), between 1997 (the year of the Kyoto Protocol) and 2008 Canadian per capita GHG emissions FELL 4.2%.

By comparison, according to their official national submissions to the United Nations, EU27 member states’ per capita GHG trends from 1997 through 2008 include:  Spain, +32.8%; Latvia, +27.4%; Cyprus, +23.1%; Estonia, +21.0%; Greenland (a Danish colony), +16.6%; Luxembourg, +16.2%; Lithuania, +13.6%; Ireland, +13.0%; Ukraine, +11.5%; Malta, +9.0%; Austria, + 7.5%; Bulgaria, +8.4%; Italy, +5.9%; Belgium, +4.0%; Netherlands, +3.2%; Portugal, +4.2%; France, +1.5%; Finland, -1.6%, United Kingdom, -2.9%.

It should be noted, further, that 100% of the emission “reductions” claimed by EU member states to date derive from offshoring manufacturing of goods and services EU demand, which has actually increased. When any nation offshores production of the goods it consumes, it shifts the GHGs associated with its national consumption to the nations it now relies on for supplies.

For just one insight into the potential implications of offshoring production for global GHG emissions, check out the following article from the UK Guardian newspaper.

Aldyen Donnelly, May 6, 2010

Posted in Aldyen Donnelly | Leave a comment

Lawrence Solomon: Virginia Launches Investigation into Climategate’s Michael Mann

The State of Virginia has decided to investigate possible wrong doing by Michael Mann of Climategate fame. Michael Mann is best known as the scientist, associated with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who came up with the controversial Hockey Stick Graph that became the icon of the global warming movement.

Virginia’s investigation is the first by a government on this side of the Atlantic into possible wrongdoing related to climate change. Other government investigations are likely, particularly if the Democrats lose control of the House or the Senate in the November elections. To see the State of Virginia’s Civil Investigative Demand, click here.

The unauthorized release of the Climategate emails last year have led to several government investigations in the U.K., as well as some by non-governmental agencies.

In the investigation to be conducted under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II, has demanded that the University of Virginia produce documents to determine whether Mann misused taxpayer funds in obtaining climate change research grants. At issue is some $500,000 in research grants involving Mann while he was at the University of Virginia between 1999 and 2005. Mann conducted his Hockey Stick research while at University of Virginia.

Cuccinelli’s investigation directly flowed from the Climategate emails, which raised doubts about the legitimacy of climate change research. If Mann knowingly presented inconsistencies in obtaining government research funds, Cuccinelli explained, Mann would be culpable.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers. LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, May 05, 2010

Posted in Climate Change, The Deniers | Leave a comment

Green jobs are the new cash for clunkers

We simply have to produce green jobs at any cost. Or at least it appears that way, judging by amount of government money earmarked for “green” jobs. Let’s take a quick look at some of the results in other countries that have implemented green-oriented policies.

First stop, Spain

  • The government’s green job push created approximately 50,000 jobs, but resulted in a loss of more than 110,000 jobs in other industries.
  • Only 1 in 10 of the new green jobs was permanent
  • Each green job created since 2000 has required about $774,000 in government subsidies.

Next up, Denmark

  • The Danish government spent $90,000 to $140,000 to create each wind job.
  • About 28,400 people were employed in the Danish wind industry, but only about 1 in 10 were new jobs — the remaining 90 percent were simply positions shifted from one industry to another.
  • From 1999 to 2006, the average government-subsidized clean energy technology worker added $10,000 less to the Danish economy than did the average employee in other industrial and manufacturing sectors
  • As a result, Danish gross domestic product was about $270 million less than it would have been if the wind industry work force were employed in other sectors.

Last stop, Germany

  • Germany instituted a feed-in tariff— which requires regional or national electric grid utilities to buy renewable electricity — and as a result, wind energy costs three times as much as conventional energy and solar power costs eight times as much.
  • The total net cost of subsidies for wind and solar power production since 2000 has topped $101 billion, producing less than 7 percent of the electric power generated nationwide.
  • The government spent an average of $240,000 in subsidies per each new green job.

This story is based on a report from the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Energy Probe is a keen supporter of renewable energy. We believe renewable energy has the ability to diversify our electricity supply, while allowing for more decentralized sources of power for consumers. But we’re not in favour of throwing massive subsides at forms of energy that are not technically or economically feasible.

Read the previous gangrene economy report, "Short Circuiting The Green Credentials Of The Electric Car" here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Aldyen Donnelly: Carbon taxes and Canada’s true carbon-emissions ranking

(May 05, 2010) A recent article in the Toronto Star, “Time to revisit the dreaded carbon tax” is riddled with some highly inaccurate reporting.

To start, the article says: “Last month, three of the world’s biggest per-capita emitters of greenhouse gases—America, Australia and Canada—put their key environmental pledges on hold until further notice…”

This is completely untrue. Neither the US or Canada put their pledge on hold. The US commitment to cut GHGs 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 is in the bag, given regulations that are currently in place combined with normal capital stock turnover rates. I explain this in slide 20 in this presentation.

US “cap and trade” bills are trade protectionist measures that are always laid on top of emission reduction-driving regulations. All of the regulations required to achieve the US target are in place now and incorporate emission trading (slides 9 through 16).  All Congress has not yet done is added the trade protection element to the mix.

I anticipate that the US cap and tax bill will become law before the end of 2011.

I am more concerned about Canada, which has not backed off our Copenhagen commitment but has not yet put in place the suite of product standard-type regulations required to ensure we keep that commitment.

Australia is another, very weird story.

Before Rudd became PM, the Aussie federal bureaucracy created a customized Australian GHG inventory with inventory does not comply with any commonly accepted GHG accounting methods.  You can review this inventory by going here and clicking on “National Greenhouse Gas Inventory”. If this is the inventory one uses to quantify Rudd’s GHG reduction commitment, Australia has very little work to do to keep its Kyoto commitment. This inventory puts Aussie GHGs at 597 MM TCO2e/year in 2007 and 553 MMTCO2e in 2008, compared to 546 MM TCO2e/year for the 1990 base year.

However, using the official UNFCCC GHG reporting methods, Australia’s 2007 GHGs actually totalled 825.9 MM TCO2e/year, compared to a 453 MM TCO2e/year 1990 baseline.

There never was any way that Australia could keep its Kyoto/Copenhagen commitments using any internationally-recognizable GHG inventory accounting methods. I cannot explain why Rudd and his bureaucrats thought they could pull off this scam of appearing to make a significant commitment but not really doing so by using an unique and illegitimate national GHG accounting approach.

In Copenhagen Rudd learned that no other nation would accept this play. This is the primary reason he was compelled to back down from his pre-election commitment.  I understand that Rudd did not comprehend the inventory accounting game the bureaucracy was playing when he made his original commitment or even when his party passed the Kyoto Protocol into domestic law after he was elected. It was only recently that he became aware of the actual situation he was in.

The article also says: “…three of the world’s biggest per-capita emitters of greenhouse gases  America, Australia and Canada…”

In 2008, Canada ranked 16th in per capita GHG emissions from energy consumption, the US ranked 13th and Australia ranked 12th.  I am not sure that most readers would equate ranking 16th to “world’s biggest”. Among the top 50 per capita GHG emitters, only 12 (including Canada and the US) have committed to reduce GHGs between 2008 and 2020. Only 2 of those with commitments regiated higher per capita GHGs from energy use than Canada in 2008.

EU member states have committed to cut aggregate GHGs only 2.7% from 2005 actual levels by 2020, compared to Canada’s commitment to cut GHGs 17% from the same base year.

Among the top 50 per capita emitters, Canada was one of only 8 nations that reduced GHGs/person between 1997 (when the Kyoto Protocol was created) and 2008 (the last year for which full data is reported).  The majority of EU member states, including carbon-taxing states, realized increases in per capita GHG emissions between 1997—when they signed the Kyoto Protocol and 2008.

The fact is that the GHG “cap” that the EU member states agreed to in Kyoto in 1997 was 14% ABOVE actual 1995 GHG levels for the member states.

Canadian negotiators unwisely committed to cap Canadian GHGs at 13% below 1995 actual levels, in the fact of Europe’s adoption of a “cap” that allowed EU member states to grow GHGs 14% from a comparable baseline. Many observers unwisely equate European compliance with their Kyoto “cap”—which allowed for aggregate GHG growth—with emission reductions. This is a significant error.

The article implies that a carbon tax, or “putting a price on carbon”, is the most effective and essential measure to achieve emission reductions. I have documented in many previous articles that energy consumption taxes have proved highly inefficient mechanisms for incenting energy demand changes. That is why no EU member state has adopted or increased its reliance on carbon taxes since 1999.

More importantly, financing income tax cuts through energy tax increases shifts tax burden from the rich to the poor, and from the private sector to the public sector. Hospitals, schools and universities do not pay income taxes but do pay energy taxes. The most dramatic and direct impact of the “green shift” in EU nations has been large increases in mandatory health care premiums and payroll taxes, made necessary by the shift of overall tax burden from the private sector to the public sector.

Aldyen Donnelly, May 05, 2010

Posted in Aldyen Donnelly | Leave a comment

Lawrence Solomon: Arctic ice sets records in April, could augur global cooling

The Arctic ice set 30 records in April, one for each day.  According to satellite data received by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, the Arctic was more ice bound each day of April than it had been any other corresponding day in April since its sensors began tracking the extent of Arctic Ice in mid 2002.  Click here to see this tracking on the Japan Aerospace website, run jointly with the International Arctic Research Center.

While Arctic ice has always varied greatly, expanding and contracting during the course of a year and also from year to year and decade to decade, the expansion of the Arctic ice this decade is significant in one respect: It acts to disprove the models that had predicted that the Arctic ice in this century would not recover as it had in previous centuries.

The expansion of the Arctic ice also acts to support a growing number of reports that Earth could be in for a period of global cooling. In one recent example, on April 14 New Scientist in an article entitled “Quiet Sun Puts Europe on Ice” warned its readers as follows: “BRACE yourself for more winters like the last one, northern Europe. Freezing conditions could become more likely: winter temperatures may even plummet to depths last seen at the end of the 17th century, a time known as the Little Ice Age. That’s the message from a new study that identifies a compelling link between solar activity and winter temperatures in northern Europe.”

New Scientist, a widely respected magazine that until recently had blamed human activity for the global warming, is now advising its readers that climate scientists may have had their blinders on in ignoring a dominant role for the Sun. New research, the article explains, “is helping to overcome a long-standing reticence among climate scientists to tackle the influence of solar cycles on the climate and weather.”

The new study that New Scientist refers to, which appears in Environmental Research Letters, a journal of the Institute of Physics, is entitled “Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity?”

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, May 03, 2010

Posted in Climate Change, The Deniers | Leave a comment