Artificial ’embryos’ created in the lab

via Current News – Principia Scientific Internationalhttp://principia-scientific.org

Scientists have created "artificial embryos" using stem cells from mice, in what they believe is a world first. The University of Cambridge team used two types of stem cells and a 3D scaffold to create a structure closely resembling a natural mouse embryo.
Previous attempts have had limited success because early embryo development requires the different cells to coordinate with each other. The…

Click title above to read the full article

via Current News – Principia Scientific International http://ift.tt/1kjWLPW

March 3, 2017 at 11:34PM

The Social Cost of Carbon Calculation Debate*

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)http://www.thegwpf.com

Fatally flawed metric or the most important number that you’ve never heard of?

“The social cost of carbon is the most important number that you’ve never heard of,” according to University of Chicago economist Michael Greenstone. Greenstone led the interagency working group that devised this metric during the Obama administration. Since it was first calculated in 2010, the social cost of carbon has been used to justify 80 different federal regulations that purportedly provide Americans with over a trillion dollars’ worth of benefits.

“The social cost of carbon is nothing but a political tool lacking scientific integrity and transparency conceived and utilized by an administration pushing a green agenda to the detriment of the American taxpayers,” insisted Rep. Darin LaHood (R-Il.), chair of the Oversight Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. LaHood’s remarks were made as he opened a hearing called “At What Cost? Examining the Social Cost of Carbon” earlier this week.

“This metric did not simply materialize out of thin, and dirty, air,” countered Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va). Beyer argued that the social cost of carbon (SCC) metric was devised by the Obama administration through a process that “was transparent, has been open to public comment, has been validated over the years and, much like our climate, is not static and changes over time in response to updated inputs.”

So what are these politicians fighting about? The social cost of carbon is a measure, in dollars, of the long-term damage done by a ton of carbon dioxide emissions in a given year. Most of the carbon dioxide that people add to the atmosphere comes from burning coal, oil, and natural gas. The Obama administration’s interagency working group calculated that the SCC was about $36 per ton (in 2007 dollars). This figure was determined by cranking damage estimates through three different integrated assessment models that try to link long-term climate change with econometric projections. Notionally speaking, imposing a tax equal to the SCC would encourage people to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions while yielding revenues that could be used to offset the estimated damage, e.g., by building higher sea walls or developing heat-resistant crops.

Can citizens take that $36-a-ton estimate to the bank? Not really.

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

March 3, 2017 at 08:53PM

US Media: Trump To Cut Climate Programmes At EPA And NOAA

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)http://www.thegwpf.com

US President Donald Trump has proposed reducing budget of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Washington Post reported. The cuts to NOAA could affect research, eliminate smaller initiatives and leave 3,000 people out of work.

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

March 3, 2017 at 08:22PM

White House Proposes Steep Budget Cut To NOAA

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)http://www.thegwpf.com

The Trump administration is seeking to slash the budget of one of the government’s premier climate science agencies by 17 percent, delivering steep cuts to research funding and satellite programs, according to a four-page budget memo obtained by The Washington Post.

The proposed cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would also eliminate funding for a variety of smaller programs, including external research, coastal management, estuary reserves and “coastal resilience,” which seeks to bolster the ability of coastal areas to withstand major storms and rising seas.

NOAA is part of the Commerce Department, which would be hit by an overall 18 percent budget reduction from its current funding level.

The Office of Management and Budget also asked the Commerce Department to provide information about how much it would cost to lay off employees, while saying those employees who do remain with the department should get a 1.9 percent pay increase in January 2018. It requested estimates for terminating leases and government “property disposal.”

The OMB outline for the Commerce Department for fiscal 2018 proposed sharp reductions in specific areas within NOAA such as spending on education, grants and research. NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research would lose $126 million, or 26 percent, of the funds it has under the current budget. Its satellite data division would lose $513 million, or 22 percent, of its current funding under the proposal.

The National Marine Fisheries Service and National Weather Service would be fortunate by comparison, facing only 5 percent cuts.

The figures are part of the OMB’s “passback” document, a key part of the annual budget process in which the White House instructs agencies to draw up detailed budgets for submission to Congress. The numbers often change during the course of negotiations between the agency and the White House and between lawmakers and the administration later on. The 2018 fiscal year starts Oct. 1.

Full story

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

March 3, 2017 at 08:22PM