Tsinghua Study Finds That Conventional Three-Way Catalyst Can Handle the Unregulated Emissions from Low-Content Methanol-Gasoline Blends
Prius Accounts for 10% of All New Passenger Car Sales in Japan in November

Scientists at Climate Talks Call for New Assessment of Nitrogen and Climate

A side event organized by the International Nitrogen Initiative (INI) at the COP-15 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen will highlight nitrogen’s role in climate change. The event organizers are calling for an immediate new assessment of nitrogen and climate which will identify innovative nitrogen management strategies for global climate change mitigation and associated co-benefits.

The organizers of the side event are the INI; CE;, the Ministry of Housing and Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM) of The Netherlands; the United Nations Environment Programme - Global Partnership on Nutrient Management (UNEP/GPNM); the David and Lucile Packard Foundation; SCOPE; the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme; COST; and the European Science Foundation Nitrogen in Europe Research Networking Programme (NinE-ESF).

On a planetary scale, human activities, especially fertilizer application, have more than doubled the amount of reactive nitrogen in circulation on land. This massive alteration of the nitrogen cycle affects climate, food security, energy security, human health and ecosystem health. The long-term consequences of these changes are yet to be fully realized, but the human impact on the nitrogen cycle has so far been largely missed in international environmental assessments, the organizers of the event said.

Nitrogen and climate interactions are not yet adequately included in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment process. There is an urgent need to assess the possibilities of nitrogen management for climate abatement and at the same time increase food security, while minimizing environmental and human health impacts. We believe that in tackling nitrogen new opportunities for climate abatement will be created.

—Dr Cheryl Palm, the chair of the International Nitrogen Initiative (INI)

In October, team of climate scientists from eight US national labs and academic institutions successfully incorporated the nitrogen cycle into global simulations for climate change for the first time, questioning previous assumptions regarding carbon feedback and potentially helping to refine model forecasts about global warming. In this case, they found that the rate of climate change over the next century could be higher than previously anticipated when the requirement of plant nutrients are included in the climate model.(Earlier post.)

The INI team believes that it is essential to untangle the complexity of the nitrogen and carbon cycle, identify the advantages of nitrogen management for climate abatement and investigates the costs and barriers to be overcome. Such an assessment needs to distinguish between developed areas where there is already an excess of nitrogen and the developing parts of the world where nitrogen management can help increase food security. Improved Nitrogen management will help limit fertilizer use, increase its efficiency and increase carbon sequestration in soils, decrease N2O emissions, while limiting other environmental and human health impacts.

The nitrogen cycle is changing faster than that of any other element. In addition, the effects of reactive nitrogen are not limited to a single medium. A single molecule of reactive nitrogen may transition through many forms—ammonia, nitrogen oxide, nitric acid, nitrate and organic nitrogen—and may successively lead to a number of environmental, health and social impacts, including contributing to higher levels of ozone in the lower atmosphere.

Over the last decade a number of global, regional and national initiatives have identified and addressed the issue of nutrient enrichment to the coastal zone. However, programs are dispersed and fragmented and there is no single place to go for an overview of available information tools and mechanisms.

—Kilaparti Ramakrishna, Senior Advisor on Environmental Law and Conventions at UNEP

The side event “Options for Including Nitrogen Management in Climate Policy Development” will be held in the US center (Hall C5) from 6 pm local time. The event will be followed by a networking reception supported by the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH), United Kingdom.



“Options for Including Nitrogen Management in Climate Policy Development”

What these people need to be studying is the wormhole transit schedule to return them to their own godd-forsaken universe. Read the internet.


Isn't the United Nations the same organization involved in scandal after scandal?


...and we are now entrusting it to come up with a scheme based on unsound science that will raise our taxes and take our freedoms away?

The Goracle


Scientists at Climate Talks Call for...

Attention "scientists:" If you ever want to be taken seriously again (OK, the sycophants of the Globalwarmist religion will ALWAYS lap up what you tell them, then repeat it ad nauseum. I'm referring to the vast majority. The reasonable, thinking people out there) you'll have to start calling for ETHICS IN SCIENCE.

Speaking of which, Green Car Congress "forgot" to post this recent, relevant, article:

Former NASA climate scientist pleads guilty to fraud


The Goracle


With functioning link this time (I know - you Globalwarmists were horrified that you couldn't click through to the article to see what kind of fraud occurred in the climate "science" field once again). Happy reading!

Former NASA climate scientist pleads guilty to fraud



According to GateMakers; scientists, doctors, and anybody who can read and write should be shipped into outer space.

Pol Pot tried that two/three decades ago. Since he was not equipped for space launches, he used other well known methods to get rid of all those 2,000,000 educated trouble makers.

What happened to all his supporters?


Scientists practicing the scientific method have done great things for the world - from pharmaceuticals to chemicals, I can't imagine a world without these kinds of scientific advances. My problem is with unsound science --- for example, psychology & sociology are loaded with unsound studies & research made to look scientific. Anyone with a little training can take a sample, run statistical analyses (regression analysis, ANOVA), and draw conclusions. "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics" - Mark Twain



I doubt anyone wants to see a purge of honest talent. But scientists, government-crats, and media types will have to answer for their actions. In particular those doling out public funds for "studies" with pre-determined results.

The marxist pol pots you refer to are very similar to the one-worlders hoping to create a global government.

Stan Peterson

Oh well, We struck out with CO2.

Our attempt to make a big deal about Methane failed as its even more rare and not accumulating at all.

Perhaps we can now 'demonize' relatively inert Nitrogen. At least there is lots of N2 in the atmosphere even if it doesn't do much. We must consume vast amounts of our energy to make it into usefull things like fertilizer. We can demonize useful fertilizer that is a product of Western industrial civilization as its 'artificial'. Then we can play the 'natural' and 'organic' cards, too.

We absolutely must find new grant opportunities and Conferences to jet off to attend in exotic places like Aspen, Bali, Tahiti, Monte Carlo, Rio, Paris et cetera.

After all, who wouldn't want us to peddle genuine organic Bovine Excrement??



Thanks for the link. I clicked through to it, and it's a story about a former climate scientist pleading guilty to business fraud, but not scientific fraud. You didn't mention that.

Any reason for the omission?

I also noticed that, as per usual, your comment did not address the article that you are ostensibly commenting on. That's a red flag.

While I have no issue with you stating your opinions, you state them dozens of times per day. This raises the question: are you paid for your comments?

I'd appreciate direct answers to my questions.


The usual bunch comes out warning us all of the economic and social catastrophe about to ensue if we reduce carbon emissions --- despite the fact that we have all the technology we need right now, and this would save consumers 1000's of dollars every year. I guess those people wouldn't have anything else to spend their money on and stimulate the economy, eh?

Hey guys, here's a little Undeniable Truth you may have conveniently overlooked due to your political bias: the US economy, over the last 1.5 years, was essentially "ruined", for a very long time, by unregulated free market capitalists manipulating the system, shafting everyone of their hard earned money through an artificially inflated bubble, then running away with the spoils as everything collapses. Where is your criticism of these guys?

By contrast, can you document a SINGLE negative economic consequence that has been attributed to reducing carbon emissions?

Here is some testimony from Greenspan, the unofficial leader of the US for the last 40 years, on his central role in the economic collapse:

"In Congressional testimony on October 23, 2008, Greenspan acknowledged that he was "partially" wrong in opposing regulation and stated "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity — myself especially — are in a state of shocked disbelief." Referring to his free-market ideology, Greenspan said: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.” Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) then pressed him to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Waxman said. “Absolutely, precisely,” Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.” Greenspan admitted fault in opposing regulation of derivatives and acknowledged that financial institutions didn't protect shareholders and investments as well as he expected."


I totally support American energy independence with clean, renewable energy as the foundation. I also support reducing emissions. But take cap-and-trade and throw it in the trash. Instead, do "Reaganomics For Renewables". Start with the elimination of the corporate tax (US has highest combined state/federal corporate tax rate in the world, at appx 40%) on all renewable (wind, solar, tidal, biofuels, geothermal) energy companies until further notice. 100% sequestered CO2 & scrubbed emissions from coal-fired power plants should qualify them for a corporate tax rate of zero also. If milestones in reaching the goals aren't met, eliminate more taxes like payroll taxes for all employees of renewable energy companies, sales taxes on products & services of renewable energy companies. Use carrots not sticks and see what happens.


With respect to the market collapse, I say throw these bums out of office....

The Goracle


Kelly, It might be helpful if you ask the correct person your question.

The issue that you raise being: I clicked through to it, and it's a story about a former climate scientist pleading guilty to business fraud, but not scientific fraud.

Fact: The "climate scientist" was actively committing fraud, issuing government contracts to his wife, while doing "climate research." He has plead guilty so there is no argument about it. Well, some will argue it, I guess.

It's just another example of what one finds when opening up the door (or computer server, as the case may be) and takes a look at some of the "leading climate scientists."


Stan Peterson

Mark Bc

The truthisd that when Ken Lay and Enron committed fraud despite their campaign contributions, they were prosecuted and sent to prison.

The reality is that Franklin Reines Jim 'Tim' Johnson and Jamie Gorelick infamous for their actions at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and EF Hutton respectively, have succeeded in buying immunity and protection from indictment and prosecution, presumeably via their large campaign contributions to their political party.

It doesn't matter what regulations you have, if the malfactors are never prosecuted, but rather safely esconsed on the White House staff instead.


Cap and trade does provide a carrot. If you reduce emissions, someone else will pay you for it.


MBC:....and that cost is passed on to the consumer so we all wind up paying more. Massive tax breaks for renewable energy companies are much more simple, do not create a new regulatory apparatus, and are more appropriate as an engine for economic growth with a multiplier effect. The Bush tax cuts are set to expire here soon, so transfer those cuts to the renewable energy sector.



I asked the correct person, thanks.


So, there is more science, even more arcane than before, that is needed in the climate models.
Somehow it links nitrogen to climate change.

The ignorant masses dared laugh when told that global warming would cause temperatures to increase, or decrease or maybe stay the same.

Well now we find that nitrogen has an unknown effect on climate change.

“In this case, they found that the rate of climate change over the next century could be higher than previously anticipated when the requirement of plant nutrients are included in the climate model.”

Obviously much more data is needed; it will be fully “processed”.


Who is naive enough or has sufficient financial interest to believe that the elimination of taxes and regulations will make what we breath, eat and drink better for our health, well-being and survival?

There is nothing further from the truth.

Without effective safeguards, greed would make our life unsustainable within 2 or 3 decades. Industry and wild free markets would make us sick by various means in order to sell us more health care Insurances and medication and increase their profit margin, etc.

A world without taxes and effective regulations would turn into anarchy very quickly.

Please remember how many already died from smoking, asbestos, toxic polluted air, industrial deseases, junk food, etc and how many more will die from increasing pollution and reduced food production due to climate changes.


ToppaTom: How did "elimination of taxes on clean, renewable energy companies" turn into a blanket "elimination of taxes and regulations"? America's economy in the early 80's was on the ropes; Reaganomics, which included massive tax cuts & massive new spending on defense, led to decades of economic growth & prosperity. America has 10% unemployment, a stagnant economy and is falling behind in the global marketplace more than ever before...has radical taxing, spending done anything to help? No. Let's try something that's proven to stimulate the economy...bold, massive tax cuts - targeted at renewable energy.


Whoops...I meant HarveyD!


ejj, let's not forget Reaganomics also led to massive increases of your national debt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Debt_Trend.svg

However I agree with you on your other points.


ai_vin: Can you really blame Reaganomics for the national debt? What is a national debt in the first place? My understanding is that it's when a country is consuming more goods from other countries (imports) than domestic goods and owes those other countries $$$. I understand the 80's was time of major industrial upheaval for the US --- the auto industry began shuttering US factories and opening new ones in Mexico, the US textile industry basically collapsed and was replaced by Asian imports, and so on. The Japanese were also flooding the US market with small cars too (made in Japan) which led to the American government allowing US production of Japanese brands provided they used "voluntary export restraints"...limited the number of cars produced in Japan & sent to the US. American defense spending helped with the hemorraging of jobs but the only thing I think that could have stopped it was a program of major tariffs & protectionism, which would have triggered a global trade war. Personally, I don't blame Reaganomics for the debt during that period.


No, you're talking about a "trade deficit." A debt is incurred when one's expenditures are greater than one's revenue, a national debt builds up when the government budgets more for it's programs[healthcare, military, etc.] than it collects in taxes.


I think Reagan had no choice but to do deficit spending to get his agenda passed based on the composition of congress at the time. A lot of the legislation was larded up with all kinds of pork in order to get republican & democrat votes...any social program cut or not addressed was framed as being as mean-spirited, uncaring & draconian...or as being done to limit government, foster individual responsibility & put money back into the pockets of taxpayers.

On this issue, I wish the US president had a line-item veto. The republicans gave Bill Clinton the line-item veto in the 90's for a while which he used effectively, but the Supreme Court struck it down & took it away...so it would obviously take an amendment to the US constitution to give it back to the president. I think it's such a critically important tool the president should have & it's brought up every now and then in politics, but I don't think the American people realize how important it is or even care...which is sad.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)