Dr. Julie Gerberding, who is the Director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) testified in front of a Senate hearing Tuesday that climate change "is anticipated to have a broad range of impacts on the health of Americans." A majority of her testimony supposedly was on the CDC's preparation, with very little on what effects climate change could have on the spread of disease.

Her testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee had much less information on health risks than a much longer draft version Gerberding submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review in advance of her appearance, as the AP article reported.

A CDC official familiar with both versions said the draft was "eviscerated" after the review process. The CDC official said that while it is customary for testimony to be changed in a White House review, these changes were particularly "heavy-handed," with the document cut from its original 14 pages to four. It was six pages as presented to the Senate committee.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said that the testimony went through an interagency review process and that the Office of Science and Technology Policy did not believe that science in the testimony matched the science that was in a report by the IPCC.

Tuesday night Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said that the Bush Administration "should immediately release Dr. Gerberding's full, uncut statement because the public has a right to know all the facts about the serious threats posed by global warming. But, CDC spokesman Tom Skinner played down the White House changes, saying Gerberding's appearance was "very productive" and she addressed the issues she wanted.

I would be curious to see what was said in the uncut version, and I agree with Boxer that it should be released. What do you think about all this? Do you think the unedited version may have been too "alarming" for the public to handle? Sort of like one of those movies you see on the Sci-Fi Channel.

UPDATE............

BrooklineTom has provided us with a link to the original version. Looks like the stuff that was edited out is highlighted. Thanks Tom.

In about two weeks, the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change will publish its final assessment of the impact of global warming, and according to an article from the Telegraph, the report will have some surprise conclusions.

According to the Telegraph article, the final IPCC assessment continues to say that the Arctic will be devastated by rising temperatures, but that the Antarctic will be spared the worst of global warming, as Antarctica's ice sheets will remain too cold for widespread melting before the end of the century and may even grow as more snow accumulates.

For the Arctic, the IPCC believes that the region will continue to see widespread loss of sea ice, similar to this year. Greenland's ice sheet is predicted to be almost gone by the end of the century and Arctic tundra will be replaced by forests, the final report will say.

Here is the latest sea ice anomaly chart (1979-current) from the Arctic region, courtesy of the Polar Research Group. Note, how far below normal the sea ice coverage area is now.

Here is the latest latest sea ice anomaly chart from around the Antarctic. Note, how the anomalies have been fairly consistent (up and down) since 1979, and if anything there has been a very slight shift toward a slightly higher than normal sea ice coverage anomaly since the mid-90's.

Image courtesy of Wikipedia

While the price of oil continues to skyrocket, the price of coal continues to fall, making it increasingly attractive to consumers across the globe. In the article from Bloomberg, the coast of a ton of coal is now down to $47 and European utilities are now willing to pay 50 dollars to ship it across the Atlantic. About ten years ago the cost of coal and oil was about the same, but now, West Texas Intermediate crude is five times more expensive than coal.

Coal use worldwide has grown 27% since 2002, which is three times faster than crude, and the three biggest U.S. coal companies forecast the largest increase in exports in 20 years.

"Coal is by far the cheapest fuel because there's no price on how much damage it causes," said John Holdren, a Harvard University professor of environmental science and director of the Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth, Massachusetts. "Unless you get policies to put a price on carbon dioxide and other emissions, no other plants can compete." Five months ago Al Gore said the U.S. should adopt a "complete moratorium" on new coal-fed power plants unless all of the CO2 from them can be buried underground. Based on what is going on now, it seems like Gore's proposal has little chance of getting enacted anytime soon.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, more than 1,000 coal-fed power plants will be built in the next 5 years, mostly in China and India. "If those 1,000 plants get built without any controls on carbon emissions, we will careen into unmanageable changes in our climate," said Holdren.

Image courtesy of Wikipedia

Exxon Mobil Corporation predicted that energy demand worldwide will grow an average of 1.3% annually through the year 2030, and that hydrocarbons such as oil, natural gas and coal will still answer about 80% of the world's energy demand by 2030, according to an article from CNN Money. That 1.3% increase is down from a 1.6% annual growth estimate issued in December 2006 as the company now has expectations that automakers and airlines will introduce more efficient engines during the next 20 years.

Based on that forecast, the company sees carbon dioxide emissions rising at a rate of 2% a year, which is mostly based on the expectation of developing nations' heavy reliance on coal to fuel their expanding industrial economies. I really can't argue with that forecast, especially when you consider the very high and growing populations in these developing countries and the coal situation, which I just blogged about in the last post.

The company also predicts a 9% increase per year in the demand for renewable sources of energy, such as wind, solar and biofuels. With that increase, renewable fuels will still hold a very small piece (only 2%) of the world's energy demand pie by 2030. Currently, alternative fuels account for about 0.5% of the world's energy demand.

I just filled up at my local Exxon......$3.09 a gallon. Doing a lot of coasting down these central Pennsylvania hills.

Here are some of the more major points from the fourth and final assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was released over the weekend. Remember, the IPCC shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

--The report concludes that it is "unequivocal" that Earth's climate is warming.

--The report finds that it is "very likely" (that's >90% likelyhood based on the chart) that emissions of heat-trapping gases from human activities have caused most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century, which is a stronger statement than the prior assessments.

--Studies confirm that current carbon dioxide and methane (heat trapping gases) exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years.

--11 of the last 12 years rank among the 12 hottest years on record (since 1850).

--Tropical cyclone intensity has increased over the past 30 years and this correlates to increases in tropical sea surface temperatures.

--There have been longer and more intense droughts, especially in the tropics and subtropics.

--Since 1900 the northern hemisphere has lost 7% of the maximum area covered by seasonally frozen ground.

--Sea levels continue to rise.

The future?

According to the story from the Union of Concerned Scientists, the IPCC assessment said that if we take no action to reduce emissions there will be twice as much warming over the next two decades than if we had stabilized heat-trapping gases and other climate revelent pollutants in the atmosphere at their year 2000 levels.

--The full range of the predicted global temperature increase by the end of the century has been expanded. The new predicted full range is (+2 to +11.5 F increase in temperature). Wow, they covered themselves pretty well there!

--The best estimate for the temperature increase by the end of the century is (+3.1 to +7.2 F)

--Most of the warming will be over land and at most high northern latitudes.

--Expect more frequent and severe tropical cyclones and heat waves.

--Increasing carbon dioxide concentration will lead to increasing acidification of the oceans.

You can read more about the IPCC fourth Assessment here.

We would love to hear your comments on this!

A group of wealthy nations have apparently broken a promise to pay more than a billion dollars to help developing countries cope with the effects of climate change.

According to The Guardian, the EU, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and New Zealand in particular said that they would jointly pay developing countries 410 million dollars each year from 2005-2008 under the terms of the Climate Adaptation Agreement made at a UN meeting in 2001 at Bonn, Germany. So far, only 177 million of the 1.2 billion due by the end of 2007 has been paid into the funds. Another 106 million has been pledged by specific countries, but has not yet been paid. I say we send out Tony Soprano and his boys to collect!

Monday meeting...........

Also, I just read that Al Gore was invited to the White House by President Bush for the first time since 2001. Bush had a 40-minute meeting with Gore discussing climate change and celebrated Gore's Nobel Peace Prize. Do you think Bush is having a change of heart in regards to global warming?

After a 16-month investigation, a new report from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee came to the "inescapable" conclusion that "the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science, mislead policy makers and the public about the dangers of global warming." The committee is chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

Republicans on the committee called the report a "political attack" and their findings question the democrat's conclusion and investigative methods. The White House called the allegations untrue, according to the ABC News article.

According to the report, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) controlled which government scientists could respond to media inquiries, thereby suppressing dissemination of scientific views that could conflict with administration policies. Scientists who denied a link between stronger hurricanes and global warming were given approval by CEQ over scientists who suggested a link. After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, White House approval for interviews with journalists became more prevalent. The committee obtained 27,000 documents from the CEQ during the investigation.

The report also stated that the White House minimized the signs of climate change by editing government climate change reports and editing scientific testimony to Congress.

"Claims that the administration interfered with scientists and with science are false." said CEQ chairman James Connaughton.

"A thorough investigation would have sought further evidence to complete the record before drawing conclusions based on the uncorroborated statements of one individual," the Republican report said.

Here is the link to the entire report (pdf file).

Update (12/12/07)........

In a follow up to this story, ABC News has a report in which Max Mayfield, the former director of the National Hurricane Center denies the committee's report that he was politically pressured to downplay the link between global warming and hurricanes during congressional testimony. Here is the link to the story.

A few days ago I blogged about a letter signed by over 100 experts of various fields to the United Nations, which said that attempting to stop global warming was futile and that the IPCC process was flawed (see below). There was also another letter to the United Nations, that was signed by nearly 200 scientists which strongly urged immediate action by leading goverments to combat global warming. To be fair, I should have linked to both letters in the initial blog, which would have provided a more balanced post in which you could compare the letters. To make up for my mistake, here is a summary of what was written in that letter......

The letter starts out by addressing the 2007 IPCC report which states that we are now at least 90% certain that human activities are contributing to a warming planet and that many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events if the trend is not halted soon.

--The letter states that global greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by 50% below their 1990 levels by 2050.

--Greenhouse gas emissions in the long run need to be stabilized at a level well below 450 ppm.

--Global emissions must peak and decline in the next 10-15 years in order to stay below the expected 2 degrees celsius increase.

TalkClimateChange.com did a nice post a couple days ago in comparing the two letters. Here is the link.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the earlier post from Saturday which I titled "Attempting to stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN

Global warming is a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages and it is not possible to stop climate change. The Bali and the IPCC process is a mistake, and will ultimately be futile. These are the conclusions from an open letter to the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, which was signed by more than 100 specialists from around the world with expertise ranging from climate science to economics and biology.

The letter, which was assembled by Robert M. Carter, professor at the Marime Geophysical Laboratory of James Cook University in Australia, argues against the existence of consensus and rejects claims of abnormal climate change. The letter also disputes the IPCC process and claims new research has emerged making the IPCC reports "materially oudated".

The IPCC's Summaries for Policy Makers are the most commonly read IPCC reports among politicians and non-scientists, yet, according to the letter, these summaries are prepared by a small core writing team with final drafts approved by government representatives. A great majority of IPCC contributers, reviewers and other qualified scientists are not involved in the preparation of the documents.

The letter, which was posted on the National Post from Canada, also states that the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. Also, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions.

By the way, one of the signers to this letter was Dr. Fred Singer, who is featured today in a video question and answer with our own Katie Fehlinger just below. Here is the link to all of the signatories of this open letter.

The 2007 Energy bill was signed into law by President Bush yesterday. Here are some of the highlights of the bill taken from the Environment News Service article......

--35 mpg standard mandated by 2020, which is the first increase in vehicle fuel economy standards in 32 years.

--100-watt incandescent light bulbs will be gone by 2012 and 40-watt ones will be history by 2014. I have already replaced about 80% of my household lighting with the compact fluorescent ones and not one has burned out yet in 3 years.

--The law creates a 15 billion gallon renewable fuels standard fro grain based fuels, which will be met primarily by corn based ethanol.

"The bill I sign today takes a significant step because it will require fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. This is nearly a fivefold increase over current levels," President Bush said. "It will help us diversify our energy supplies and reduce our dependence on oil."

Not everyone was happy with the passage of the bill...........

Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) said the measure would increase the cost of fuel, triggering a recession. "The cost of building our homes is going to go up because of all the new building code restrictions for so-called ‘green buildings' in this bill. The cost of electricity is going to go up. The cost of manufacturing our automobiles and our trucks is going to go up."

"The cost of appliances is going to go up because of all the new efficiency standards we're putting in for appliances. And even the cost of light bulbs is going to go up. The light bulbs that light this chamber right now will be illegal when this bill becomes totally implemented. The incandescent light bulb that you can get for 90 cents or 50 cents at Wal-Mart is going to be outlawed," said Barton. "That's a cause for recession."

On the other side.......

"The lighting section of the energy bill is a bright light in an otherwise underachieving piece of legislation," said Earth Day Network President Kathleen Rogers. "Along with the requirement that automobile fleets average 35 miles per gallon and building efficiency improvements, Congress took a very modest step in the right direction, but sold out to the oil and gas industries by approving huge subsidies to companies that are experiencing record profits."

What is your opinion of the new Energy Law? Too much? Not enough? Or a good compromise.