Raingate, Cap 'n Tax, Energy Poverty, CCNet news tips

Global Warming Fraudsters Exposed in Media Lies on Pakistan Monsoon
John O'Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists
Leading monsoon expert proves global warming med ia doomsayers lied to the public on the severity of this year’s floods in Pakistan.

Penn & Teller Bullshit: Global Warming via Motl
Personal carbon credit seller companies can charge whatever they like for your CO2 emissions. They can spend the unearned income on whatever project they like, they could wander around the streets talking to people and charge £5000 an hour.There is no obligatory oversight.

U.S. Senator James Inhofe via Climate Realists
on global warming policy, warning that, despite its defeat this year in Congress, "backdoor" cap-and-trade is "alive and well" at the EPA.
We are going to talk about jobs, and competitiveness, and manufacturing, and small businesses, and real people who will have to pay more for electricity, food, and gasoline.
What do I mean here?  Well, even with all the progress we've made, cap-and-trade is alive and well. That may sound strange, especially given the events of the last year, and given Senator Reid's recent declaration that cap-and-trade is dead in the next Congress.
What Sen. Reid said may be true for the massive, thousand-page bills filled with mandates, taxes, regulations, bureaucracy, and much else.  But it's not true for the more subtle strain of cap-and-trade now moving through the Environmental Protection Agency.
That's right: this is backdoor cap-and-trade, hidden behind an administrative curtain. 

 

Winter Deaths To Soar As 5 Million Homes Struggle To Pay Fuel Bills Daily Express via JS
More than five million British households will struggle to stay warm this winter and the number of people likely to die in freezing temperatures is set to rise sharply, a leading charity warned yesterday.
There are increasing concerns for poorer pensioners and other vulnerable people, said National Energy Action. Fuel poverty is defined as when a household needs to spend more than 10 per cent of its income keeping warm. Campaigners say it is caused by poorly insulated homes, low incomes, and the continued high cost of energy bills. Gas and electricity prices have soared more than 80 per cent in the last five years.

Green Deal is not a good deal for all homeowners (Juliette, revolutionary Guardianista?)
A government loan to pay for 'energy efficiency makeovers' to your home sounds like a winner, but the promised savings don't stand up to closer inspection

Richard at EU Referendum - What have I missed?
The Government will publish its latest excess winter mortality statistics for England and Wales, covering the bitterly cold winter of 2009/2010, on Tuesday 23 November - this helpful piece of information supplied to you courtesy of Friends of the Earth.
They are urging the Government to ensuring all UK homes are made energy efficient, and thus avoid unaffordable fuel bills and high carbon [dioxide] emissions, the latter being necessary to avoid ... er ... global warning.
So, let's get this straight.
Friends of the Earth, who have been leading the way in demanding increased energy costs, in order to reduce energy usage and thus carbon dioxide emissions, in order to prevent global warming.

Lawrence Solomon: Ontario’s powerful sleight of hand via JS
Under the old Ontario Hydro monopoly, the provincial power system was run on a non-profit basis. While the absence of a profit motive eliminated an incentive to be efficient, the system did have one virtue – the government couldn’t milk it for revenue. Under the new government-run monopoly system, the power system is run on a for-profit basis, with the profit roughly proportionate to its equity. The more expensive the system, the higher the dividends, fees and taxes that accrue to the government. Put another way, the new power system rewards inefficiency — the bigger the boondoggles, the fatter the government coffers. The new system is already quietly filling those coffers with some $2 billion a year that wasn’t available to them under the old Ontario Hydro system.

Closed Loop Energy By Geoffrey Styles
[...] it's perfectly reasonable to claim that at least compared to burning petroleum diesel in Waste Management's trucks, the Altamont LNG is a nearly zero emission fuel. The more interesting question is whether this disposition, with its obvious green PR benefits, is actually the best use of the energy recovered from the landfill. The same Argonne report indicates that the total energy consumption in the landfill gas-LNG-motor fuel pathway is about 8% higher than in the oil well-refinery-motor fuel pathway for diesel fuel. That hints at the possibility that the total emissions reductions from Altamont might be even greater if the gas were used, not to power garbage trucks, but for another purpose, such as generating power to back out electricity imported into the state from coal-burning sources in places like Four Corners, New Mexico. In any case, lest we make the perfect the enemy of the good, what Waste Management and Linde are doing at Altamont is certainly good compared to the default option of flaring all that gas, and the kudos they have received look well deserved.

Disarmament In America's Energy Security Battles
Development of abundant power and fuel sources is being restrained by regulatory headlocks in favor of much higher-cost green alternatives with relatively scant capacity prospects.

U.N. Panel To Review Chinese CO2 Offset request A United Nations panel has called for a review of a request for carbon offsets from a Chinese project which destroys the harmful greenhouse gas called hydrofluorocarbon-23 (HFC-23).


CO2 as a Refrigerant PDF
CO2 has been used as a refrigerant since 1850 and is now regaining popularity due to its low environmental impact. O:-)


Academic really, the IPCC having admitted it was always about taking your money (and here) with the climate as the excuse (see green-agenda.com as vindication snowballs) and after their deductions, giving it to someone else.

CCNet - Policy relevant news items
24 Nov Methane Hydrates: The Next Energy Revolution?

Gas hydrates are said to contain more energy than all other fossil fuels combined, and are much cleaner than oil and coal. Global estimates "range from merely jaw-dropping to the truly staggering," according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Canada is believed to have enough hydrates along its coasts to meet the country's energy needs for a couple of hundred years.
Margaret Munro, The Gazette, 15 November 2010
Unlike technologies used in the faster-than-expected development of shale gas in the US, the technology for extracting usable fuel from Japan's methane hydrates is still in the developmental stage. If Japan can lower the methane hydrates output costs to the point of offshore production platforms, it could be made competitive against LNG by bringing it ashore via pipelines to its nearest coasts.
Takeo Kumagai, Platts, 22 November 2010
Buried below the tundra of China’s Qinghai-Tibet Plateau is a type of frozen natural gas containing methane and ice crystals that could supply energy to China for 90 years. China discovered the large reserve of methane hydrate last September, and last week the Qinghai Province announced that it plans to allow researchers and energy companies to tap the energy source.
Xinhua News Agency, 6 March 2010
[My suggestion a while back was for a mobile village to supply the ground warming heat. Collection would be simple as methane is lighter than air. The warmed ground could be used to grow catch crops such as hemp (for biofuel - honest injun), cool-season legumes such as clovers, vetches, medics, and field peas, lettuce, carrots etc. in clotches that could also funnel the gas with the waste left to form more methane.]
Cheap coal and the wide availability of shale gas make decarbonisation in the near future very unlikely. Even if developed countries committed to switch to renewables, this would be offset by the rising emissions in China. Decarbonisation has never been in the interest of developing countries. Western carbon-cutting efforts are mostly a waste of effort and resources.
Dalibor Rohac, Energy Tribune, 22 November 2010
With nearly 15 million Americans out of work and the unemployment rate hovering above 9 percent for 18 consecutive months, policymakers desperate to stoke job creation have bet heavily on green energy. The Obama administration channeled more than $90 billion from the $814 billion economic stimulus bill into clean energy technology, confident that the investment would grow into the economy's next big thing. The industry's growth has been undercut by the simple economic fact that fossil fuels remain cheaper than renewables.
Michael A. Fletcher, The Washington Post, 23 November 2010

1) Japan looks to offshore methane hydrates to cut reliance on energy imports - Platts, 22 November 2010
2) Arctic's 'fiery ice' is potential new energy source - The Gazette, 15 November 2010
3) Game Over In The Carbon War? - Energy Tribune, 22 November 2010
4) Obama's Green Deal Isn't Working - The Washington Post, 23 November 2010
5) Economy First: UK Government U-Turn On Green Energy Policy - The Guardian, 24 November 2010
6) Editorial: America Gets Gored - Investor’s Business Daily, 22 November 2010
7) Sean M O’Brien: How A Scientific Integrity Act Could Shift The Global Warming Debate - The Air Vent, 23 November 2010

The cycle cycles
Without the financial carrot perhaps some fat will be shed... Not just by journalists having to move their backside to find news, copy typists masquerading as journalists may be found to be counterproductive to sales figures.
(Junk Science news tips:)
(Media ice age scorched earth cycle)
Election Results Scare AAAS Scientists
[...] Staff reporters for the AAAS flagship journal are all atwitter about the evil Republicans coming back into power, and they are not alone. Reportedly, many researchers fear the worst after the Republican victory at the polls produced a 25-plus-seat majority in the House of Representatives and reduced the Democrats' hold on the Senate. The $20 billion for scientific research that was part of the $787 billion stimulus package may have been the high water mark for government funding during the Obama administration.

(Peak Oil every decade)
Plenty of Energy
Last week's New York Times had an article arguing that there are plenty of fossil fuels available to meet projected demand for coming decades. If that is the case, then all the more reason for accelerated efforts to increase that demand by expanding access and to put a small price on today's energy supply, while it is plentiful and relatively cheap, in order raise the funds necessary to invest in innovation to build a bridge to tomorrow.
[...] “Oil and gas will continue to be pillars for global energy supply for decades to come,” said James Burkhard, a managing director of IHS CERA, an energy consulting firm. “The competitiveness of oil and gas and the scale at which they are produced mean that there are no readily available substitutes in either one year or 20 years.”
[...] “We should celebrate the fact that we have enough oil and gas to carry us forward until a new energy technology can take their place,” said Robert N. Ryan Jr., Chevron’s vice president for global exploration.
Mr. Skelly and other renewable energy entrepreneurs counter that without a government policy fixing a price on carbon emissions through a tax or cap and trade, the hydrocarbon bridge could go on and on without end.
As anyone with eyes to see would know if they follow the news, any peak in oil will be as usual artificial to force the price and this time if it becomes fact (never happened before) will be caused by actions such as Obama's attempt to stop Gulf oil exploration and recovery with the aid of useful idiots in the eco-environutz camps that are attempting to stop UK gas and oil exploration and recovery. "Viva the Stone Age". Yeah. 

(CO2 cycle, rising with warming and with a lag of 8 - 13 years, falling with cooling)
Global CO2 emissions back on the rise in 2010
Gods bless the Chinese and the Indians, and the 1010 CO2 ppm target.

China Rules Out Linking Climate Aid To Transparency
They don't want NWO - UN globalist interference in their economy, they've seen the devastation it is causing in Europe, the UK, the US, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iceland, Australia, NZ etc. If they want to be certain of it they should boot Strong and get far away from fiat money and fractional reserve banksterism or crash with the ROTW .

Summary.
Control of fuel, control of food, debt enslavement, demonisation of capitalism, replacement of democracy with eco facist socialism, erasure of sovereignty, population reduction, control of the air and a global currency with a global government. Yep, NWO is on course.

Rockefeller-Rothschild's Club of Rome founded two sibling organizations, the Club of Budapest and the Club of Madrid (Blair's club). The former is focused on social and cultural aspects of their agenda, while the latter concentrates on the political aspects. All three of these 'Clubs' share many common members and hold joint meetings and conferences. As explained in other articles on this website it is abundantly clear that these are three heads of the same beast. The CoR has also established a network of 33 National Associations. Membership of the 'main Club' is limited to 100 individuals at any one time. Some members, like Al Gore and Maurice Strong, are affiliated through their respective National Associations (e.g. USACOR, CACOR etc).

"The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

I.E. YOU. Know your enemy.

Global Warming Policy Foundation Special

David Henderson: Deutsche Bank’s Green Politics (PDF)
13 November 2010 19:26
In relation to climate change issues, two recent initiatives on the part of the Deutsche Bank Group give grounds for concern.

(1) In September, the Bank's 'Climate Change Advisors' issued a document entitled Climate Change: Addressing the Major Skeptic Arguments: it was authored by three climate scientists at Columbia University. In an editorial introduction, the Bank's Global Head of Climate Change Investment Research describes it as “a balanced, detailed and expert assessment of the scientific case for climate change that will help investors navigate these extremely complex issues”.
The document's claims to accuracy as a navigational guide were promptly put in question by Ross McKitrick, one of  the 'skeptics' supposedly disposed of within it. McKitrick's paper, entitled Response to Misinformation from Deutsche Bank, is dated 12 September. It identifies and spells out an array of errors and misrepresentations.
In response, the authors of the document have now put out a new text which supersedes the original. In this new version they have added a three-page Response to McKitrick where they admit to a few 'mischaracterizations' and offer amended versions of three sentences that they acknowledge to have been misleading. However, the original wording of these faulty sentences remains unchanged and unfootnoted in an unaltered main text: McKitrick has described this behaviour as 'unsporting', while others might characterise it as unprofessional.
In a second piece, dated 8 November, McKitrick has responded to the revised report. In this paper he extends and reinforces his critique. Viewed together, his twin presentations appear as unanswerable. As a guide to investors, or indeed for any other purpose, the document is worthless.
It would be interesting to know whether the Deutsche Bank officials who sponsored and approved this deeply flawed initiative took the precaution of submitting a draft for expert review to persons not already firmly convinced that the 'skeptics' have been refuted.
Looking at the list, it would seem that no such person is to be found among the eminent individuals who make up the Deutsche Bank's Climate Advisory Board: all appear as people who are (to quote a nice phrase from Clive Crook) 'precommitted to the urgency of the climate cause'. A more representative Board, spanning a wider range of opinions. might have taken more trouble to ensure that any published work issued under its auspices would measure up to professional standards.

(2) In the recent Californian elections, voters were invited to accept or reject Proposition 23, which would have placed strict constraints on the state government's plans to introduce further curbs on CO2 emissions. A few days before the vote, a Financial Times report noted that:
'Sixty-eight big investors, managing $415bn in assets, have united to urge Californians to vote against efforts to roll back the state's carbon legislation ... Signatories include ... Deutsche Bank Climate Advisers ...'
If this report is correct, it would seem that its Climate Advisory Board took a strong position on the Bank's behalf on a controversial political matter.
As its website confirms, Deutsche Bank is fully is committed to Corporate Social Responsibility. How far its current handling of climate change issues can be judged to be responsible is open to debate.

Professor David Henderson is the Chairman of the GWPF's Academic Advisory Council. His latest publication on climate change issues has just appeared in the quarterly Newsletter of the Royal Economic Society. ***
________________________________________

Excerpt: Deutsche Bank, Al Gore And The $10 Billion Climate Fund
Interview by Christian Hiller Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
10 November 2010
The rising levels of global carbon dioxide emissions are increasingly an issue for financial markets. Kevin Parker is convinced of it. The American leads the Global Asset Management business of Deutsche Bank and operates a biodynamic vineyard.

Mr. Parker, you are personally strongly committed to protecting the global climate. Is this not unusual for the head of a global asset management business?
Not at all. Climate change is one of the great megatrends in the world. No investor will pass by this topic.
How can this be understood?
The world economy is largely based on fossil fuels, which we burn unchecked and then strain the atmosphere. The transition to an economy that uses less carbon dioxide has kept us very busy since 2005. Today we are one of the largest investors in the world that invests in climate change. We alone, Deutsche Bank’s Asset Management, have invested several billion Euros.
Why should climate change play a role in the financial markets?
It not only should - it has done so for a long time. Companies which do not start to reduce their CO2 emissions pose an increased risk for investors. Some companies will make the transition to a low-carbon economy successfully, others will fail.
Are you saying that the carbon dioxide emissions will decide how a share will perform on the stock market?
Yes, certainly. You can also see it as an opportunity: companies that tackle environmental challenges and contribute to solutions will be more successful than the others. A company’s carbon dioxide emissions have a direct impact on its cash flow. And this is not just my opinion. These are facts that no one can seriously deny.
How do you find these stocks?
This is part of our daily business, our analysis. If we, for example, have the choice between an energy supplier, which burns dirty coal and one that relies on renewable energy, then we can tell which company will be competitive in the long run and which not.
Do you use your power as an investor to influence corporate policy?
We do not behave in missionary way, waving with a CO2 stick. But it is part of our task as trustees of the investors to identify risks and to name them.
Has the focus on climate change changed the asset management of the Deutsche Bank? /continues
_______________________________________________________

My comment: What follows is an explanation of how the IPCC has used its political clout to achieve political objectives, i.e. taking money from the public by deception and transferring it to banks, the UN/EC (NWO) political fund and developing countries.
Common knowledge tells us that the IPCC is directed by the Club of Rome think tank's UNEP is a major contributor to CoR's NWO plot progression by political objectives that embrace a global currency, population reduction, destruction of the capitalist system and discrediting of democracy by any means, their preferences being biased towards false medical scares, false climate alarm, financial market destabilisation and currency debasement, wealth transfer to reduce the world to the lowest common denominator.
The Rothschild-Rockefeller bankster cartel and their insurance companies and business lobbies such as DuPont, Enron now GE, BP, etc., various medical orgs and activist charities in concert with aligned scientific orgs and journals, owned or co-opted politicians and controlled media gave the deception a facade. Around 2000 people are conning the world to profit and further an eco-fascist agenda whose direction is given at Bilderberg conferences. Bilderberger's latest meeting included how to maintain the NWO momentum in the now cooling planet.
It has never, ever been about fixing climate.

Excerpt: IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth” *****
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated.
(Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010 Transl. Philipp Mueller)

Interviewer: Bernard Potter
NZZ am Sonntag:
Mr. Eden, everybody concerned with climate protection demands emissions reductions. You now speak of "dangerous emissions reduction." What do you mean?

Ottmar Edenhofer: So far economic growth has gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind remembers: In order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas. And therefore, the emerging economies fear CO2 emission limits.

But everybody should take part in climate protection, otherwise it does not work.

That is so easy to say. But particularly the industrialized countries have a system that relies almost exclusively on fossil fuels. There is no historical precedent and no region in the world that has decoupled its economic growth from emissions. Thus, you cannot expect that India or China will regard CO2 emissions reduction as a great idea. And it gets worse: We are in the midst of a renaissance of coal, because oil and gas (sic) have become more expensive, but coal has not. The emerging markets are building their cities and power plants for the next 70 years, as if there would be permanently no high CO 2 price.

The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy. /continues
****
Also see "Constructal GDP"
Lack of energy doesn’t merely hinder or slow or delay development of poor countries as I had thought.
It puts an absolute ceiling on development.
_______________________

Excerpt: David Henderson: Climate Change Issues - New Developments In A 20-Year Context
15 November 2010 Royal Economic Society (PDF)

Regular readers will know that the Royal Economic Society Newsletter has published a number of articles in recent years looking at aspects of the climate change debate. In this one, David Henderson (1) reviews the debate and puts new developments in perspective.
This note presents a personal sketch of the current debate on climate change issues, with special reference to the debate among economists. The opening sections, which give a 20-year perspective, draw in part on a paper of mine published earlier this year in the journal Energy and Environment. In the final section I comment on recent unexpected developments and their possible significance.

Received opinion and its basis
In relation to climate change issues, there exists a well-established body of received opinion shared by the great majority of governments and by many of their citizens.
The key elements of received opinion, briefly summarised, are as follows:

• Warming caused by human activities (AGW), through rising emissions, and hence rising atmospheric concentrations, of (so-called) ‘greenhouse gases’, has already become the main influence on global average surface temperatures.
• AGW can be expected to proceed further, as emissions continue to rise as a consequence of growing world output, unless effective preventive measures are put in place.
• Such a general unconstrained rise in global temperatures would increasingly carry with it a range of serious risks, with the possibility in the longer term of developments that could be classed as catastrophic.
• Hence further prompt, sustained and world-wide governmental action is called for in order to limit the extent of warming and deal with its possible consequences. The action should chiefly take the form of ‘mitigation’ — that is, of measures designed to curb emissions of ‘greenhouse gases’ in general and CO2 in particular.

It will be seen that all these four propositions relate to, or depend on, the properties of the climate system. All the first three, and in part the last, are statements about the physical world.
Received opinion is reflected in an official policy consensus. With few exceptions, governments across the world are firmly committed to the view that AGW constitutes a serious problem which requires prompt and continuing official action at both national and international level.
Throughout the years since its adoption, this policy consensus has gone without serious political challenge. In the OECD member countries in particular, climate change issues have been the subject of close and continuing cross-party agreement.
Received opinion has now been in place for over two decades, during which time it has spread and gained further ground. Throughout, it has gone unquestioned within what may be termed the environmental policy milieu. The policy consensus, which itself goes back to the end of the 1980s, has likewise remained a fixture on the world scene and a continuing basis for widespread governmental action at local, national and international level. Both have acquired an aura of permanence.
How is the emergence and continued hold of received opinion to be explained? I think the answer is straightforward. From the start the main influence was, as it still is, the scientific advice provided through what I call the official expert advisory process.
That advice can and does come from many sources; but the main single channel for it, indeed the only channel of advice for governments collectively, has been the series of massive and wide-ranging Assessment Reports produced by the Intergovernmental  Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The most recent of these, referred to for short as AR4, was completed and published in 2007. Work on its successor is now under way.
Throughout the series of Assessment Reports, from 1990 onwards, what has chiefly carried weight has been the presentation of climate science in the reports from the Panel’s Working Group I. In this connection, continuing unqualified praise for the Panel’s work and role has come, not only from its member governments, but also from many scientists outside the field of climate science and from leading scientific academies across the world.
It is often claimed that there now exists a world-wide scientific consensus on climate change issues, sometimes described as ‘overwhelming’. I believe that such language is inappropriate; but I think it is correct to say that alongside the official policy consensus (which is a reality), and providing both rationale and support for it, there exists an established body of what I call prevailing scientific opinion.

Continues with "A spectrum of opinions"
__________________________________

News articles relevant to current events as advised via CCNet newsletter edited by Dr Peiser of the GWPF:
*****IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth” - Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010

 Jairam Ramesh: 'Dependence On British Climate Science Has Cost Us' - The Hindu, 17 November 2010

Green Pork Fight: US Administration Begs China To Subsidise US Industry - Voice of America, 17 November 2010

Richard Lambert, Nigel Lawson & David King At The CBI Climate Summit - BBC News, 17 November 2010

Britain's Climate Policy In Disarray - The Daily Telegraph, 18 November 2010

Without Government Intervention, Natural Gas Would Be Too Cheap, Huhne Says - Bloomberg, 17 November 2010

The €1trn Euro Decade: Costs Up, Risks Up, But Governments Are Still In Denial - Citi Investment Research & Analysis, GWPF October/November 2010

Poland: A European Kuwait? - Deutsche Welle, 17 November 2010

 Not Only Climate Science Needs Good Auditors - Accountancy Age, 18 November 2010
____________________________

Tributes to Brian G. Marsden, Eminent Astronomer, who died after a prolonged illness.
This might be off-topic on some of the lists to which I am a member of . . . but it is a very sad piece of news that everyone in the astronomical community should be made aware of. Brian was a good friend . . . a brilliant man . . . and one of the nicest people in the astronomical community. As those of the Jewish faith would say, a real mensch. -- Joe Rao
You're doing a great job and have been extraordinarily patient in ensuring that all reasonable sides of an issue are covered on CCNet. --Brian Marsden (1937-2010)

Sky & Telescope, 18 November 2010 Kelly Beatty

CFA Press Release: Brian Marsden, Eminent Astronomer and Comet/Asteroid Tracker, Dies
Dr. Marsden's full biography is available online.

Brian Marsden's Comments and Essays on CCNet
New Type Of Transneptunian Object Recognized
One-Mile-Wide Asteroid To Pass Closer Than The Moon In 2028
No Asteroid Impact In 2028
IAUC 6879 And An Explanation
The Value Of The 1997 XF11 Precovery
CCNet Essay: Thoughts At The Start Of The False Millennium
What Are The Lessons From 1997 XF11 And 1999 AN10?
It Pays To Save Old Photographs