August 30, 2010"The Greening of Godzilla"This is the title from a piece written by Walter Russell Mead for The American Interest Online that could not be improved upon. Mead dismantles the "green" movement not so much from a scientific standpoint but to illustrate that it has become the enemy that it abhors: The Establishment. The case environmentalists used to make was that modern science was too crude and too incomplete to take into account the myriad features that could turn a giant hydroelectric dam from a blessing into a curse. Yes, the dam would generate power — for a while. But green critics would note that the dam had side effects: silt would back up in the reservoir, soil downstream would be impoverished, parasites and malaria bearing mosquitoes would flourish in the still waters and so on and so forth. Meanwhile the destruction of wetlands and river bottoms imposed enormous costs to wildlife diversity and the productivity of river systems. Salmon runs would disappear. Often, the development associated with hydroelectric dams led to deforestation, offsetting gains in flood control. Mead goes on to point out that greenies have morphed to espousing a simple solution (cap and trade) for a very complex problem (the environment). They now hide behind the "expert" label to hush critics. That's interesting but perhaps not all that groundbreaking. What is more interesting is how Mead parallels liberal enviro regulation to their handling of the economy. We're told that financial reform will smooth all of the economic cycles and eliminate future "bubbles." Of course, that's nonsense because the economy, like the environment, is too complex for central planning. Essentially, the core environmentalist argument against big projects and big development is the same argument that libertarians use against economic regulations and state planning. The ‘economic ecology’ of a healthy free market system is so complex, libertarians argue, that bureaucratic interventions, however well intentioned and however thoroughly supported by peer reviewed science of various kinds, will produce unintended consequences — and in any case the interventions and regulations are too crude and too simple to provide an adequate substitute for the marvelously complex economic order that develops from free competition. This piece seems to meander between subjects, but the common thread is "experts" trying to solve problems that cannot be solved with grandiose solutions. The result is stifling regulation that creates as many new problems as it solves. Worth the whole read.
Posted by Boulder Refugee at 12:38 PM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
Professor Mead is generally worth the read. Great link, I loved it, but I think Mead joins our beloved brother jg in oversanguininityness. Epic fail yes, but while Mead was learning history and politics, I was watching horror movies. And the monster is usually not dead when it appears so. No cap and trade -- but Colorado just passed a law to send our utility bills through the roof. We'll tell our grandchildren about incandescent bulbs like Uncle Benny told us about soda fountains. Weatherization, hybrids...
But jk thinks:
Steven Hayward at The American piles on: First, with the complete collapse of cap-and-trade in the Senate, the greens should face the ironic fact that if Senator John McCain had been elected president in 2008, we’d almost certainly have some form of cap-and-trade in place right now. Recall that McCain cosponsored two previous cap-and-trade proposals in the Senate and would have made cap-and-trade a higher priority than healthcare reform. He could also have brought some Republicans along for the ride. Yet despite his green sentiments, McCain received a zero rating from the League of Conservation Voters in 2007 and 2008, while President Obama received perfect marks (when he showed up to vote, that is). So, environmentalists threw in their lot with Obama. Hayward's point is that the enviros are battered spouses mishandling their own interests. What drops out is that he is right. I'd rather have Cap'n Tax® than ObamaCare®, but I don't feel so bad anymore. Posted by: jk at August 30, 2010 3:38 PM July 29, 2010Ding Dong the DAWG is DeadI've read a dozen of these and generally find them too optimistic. But Shikha Dalmia says Future historians will pinpoint Democratic Sen. Harry Reid's energy legislation, released Tuesday, as the moment that the political movement of global warming entered an irreversible death spiral. It is kaput! Finito! Done! Unlike predecessors, Dalmia admits the back-to-the-cavers will not give up soon and will cause a bit more havoc before they do. Another big private-jetfest is in the works, and they will try to use Executive power and state initiatives. But dead is dead. The global warming warriors will likely have to go through the five stages of grief before accepting that their moment has passed and the movement is dead. Thinkers more sophisticated than Krugman will no doubt point to many proximate causes for its demise beyond evil Republicans such as lack of engagement by President Obama, bad economic timing, filibuster rules, what have you.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:50 AM
| Comments (0)
June 1, 2010Oh no, not another "large tragedy"(Filed under DAWG 'cause really, what else does Algore do?) Al and Tipper (explicit lyrics advisory) Gore are splitsville. There is oil gushing into the ocean and people are killing humanitarian aid workers and the earth is still warming. (...) I didn't know I had any room at all to care about the Gores' relationship, but maybe because it's something so much smaller, so much more personal, a headline so much easier to absorb than the other larger tragedies playing out around the globe...
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:23 PM
| Comments (4)
But jk thinks:
It made sad but perfect sense. "What else does Algore do?" Well, the Vice President makes movies (at least singular). He just bought a seacoast mansion outside of Beverly Hills. He has an Oscar. VP Gore is an official "Hollywood guy" and is now bound by the ethos of tinseltown.
But Keith Arnold thinks:
So that face-eating kiss at the 2000 convention was all theater, and splitsville is - forgive me, I've got to say it - the inconvenient truth. At least, for Tipper's sake, they didn't end the way their archetypes did in Love Story. Yeah, these jokes write themselves... Posted by: Keith Arnold at June 1, 2010 5:46 PM
But jk thinks:
Posted by: jk at June 2, 2010 1:00 PM
But johngalt thinks:
On the other hand, did Bush really just save America from the embarassment of its first divorced ex-president? We could'a been France! Posted by: johngalt at June 2, 2010 3:01 PMMay 28, 2010King Barack the VerboseOn the heels of Charles Krauthammer's King Canute reference, [third comment] Mark Steyn fills us in on the background. In the age of kings, we were taught that kings were human, with human failings. Now, in the age of citizen-presidents, we are taught that government has unlimited powers over "heaven, earth and sea." Unlike Canute and Alfred, the vanity of Big Government knows no bounds. You won't be sorry if you read it all. He even takes a whack at the Euro.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:24 PM
| Comments (0)
May 19, 2010Deleterious Anthroprogenic Global... Cooling?Those of us who lived through the '70s and actually remember them (refer to the discussion of recreational drug use below) recall the dire predictions. Pollution was causing artificial cloud cover that would shade the earth, thus causing global cooling. The next Ice Age was just around the corner. Then came along Al Gore and the doomsday scenario du jour (no pun intended) became global warming.
Well, we've apparently come full circle. Dr. Don Easterbrook of Western Washington University now believes that we are in for a period of global cooling. “Rather than global warming at a rate of 1 F per decade, records of past natural cycles indicate there may be global cooling for the first few decades of the 21st century to about 2030,” said Easterbrook, speaking on a scientific panel discussion with other climatologists. This, he says, will likely be followed by “global warming from about 2030 to 2060,” which will then be followed by another cooling spell from 2060 to 2090. It is important to note that Dr. Easterbrook indicates that this is part of the normal pattern. But don't tell Congress - they've got important Cap'n Tax legislation to pass while the time is still ripe. Hat tip: 20th Century Fox, the owner of this picture, from "The Day After Tomorrow." Note: Speaking of recreational drug use, while he has no personal knowledge, The Refugee suspects that the above picture is best viewed while on acid.
Posted by Boulder Refugee at 11:20 AM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
What a kook! It just gets hotter and cooler irrespective of SUVs? Like witches run it or something? For a little more scientific view, catch the most depressing commencement address ever. A few clips of a former vice president might make The Refugeee reach for the meth... Posted by: jk at May 19, 2010 11:51 AM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:
Where's my pipe?!? Posted by: Boulder Refugee at May 19, 2010 12:54 PMApril 20, 2010Truth in Media (no, REALLY)Just when you thought it wasn't safe to consume any establishment media news product comes this in US News and World Report: Global Warming, Ethanol, DDT and Environmentalism’s Dark Side Those who question global warming alarmists’ claims and policy prescriptions have been compared to holocaust deniers. Yet what are we to call environmentalists whose policies have resulted in the deaths of millions and could exacerbate poverty and hunger? The movie title Not Evil, Just Wrong may be too charitable. Snap! Now that's what I call 'Hope and Change' in the news business. How did this happen? The story was written by Carrie Lukas, VP of Policy and Economics at the Independent Women's Forum (because "All issues are women's issues.") Their mission: The Independent Women's Forum is a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and educational institution. Founded in 1992, IWF focuses on issues of concern to women, men, and families. Our mission is to rebuild civil society by advancing economic liberty, personal responsibility, and political freedom. IWF builds support for a greater respect for limited government, equality under the law, property rights, free markets, strong families, and a powerful and effective national defense and foreign policy. IWF is home to some of the nation's most influential scholars—women who are committed to promoting and defending economic opportunity and political freedom. OK, sounds good so far. They may have been founded in 1992 but it's hard to believe this has been their mission all along. I think JK'd have linked 'em by now! ;) Better late than never though. UPDATE: Here's the link to the entire US N&WR entry and not just the excerpt on balanced-ed.org. It's an editorial. Oh well, the flicker of hope felt really good for those few minutes. Still check out iwf.org though.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:16 PM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
In my defense, I have linked to the filmmakers several times. Posted by: jk at April 20, 2010 4:07 PM
But johngalt thinks:
I don't think iwf.org is affiliated with 'Not Evil, Just Wrong' but I could be wrong, not evil too. Posted by: johngalt at April 20, 2010 5:23 PMMarch 30, 2010Huh? Science Not Settled?Meteorologists Against Global Warming? Mai Non! Joe Bastardi, for example, a senior forecaster and meteorologist with AccuWeather, maintains that it is more likely that the planet is cooling, and he distrusts the data put forward by climate scientists as evidence for rising global temperatures. I'm linking 'cause I like the guy's name. Wonder if any of the DAWG-promoters have a nickname for Mister Bastardi... Hat-tip: Instapundit (I thought I should throw a link back).
Posted by John Kranz at 3:26 PM
| Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:
Go Joe! I've liked Joe B. for a long time, even before he "came out" on DAWG. O'Reilly (cough, cough) recently hosted a Climate Change debate between Joe the Meterologist (my name) and Bill Nye "The Science Guy." Joe took Nye apart, complete with maps and graphs. Nye was admirable in not revealing the sweat building under his stupid little bow-tie. As for Joe's tease-worthy surname, I'll just say that the Bill Nye's rhyming word is "guy" not science. We could call him whatever kind of guy we want. Posted by: johngalt at March 30, 2010 3:56 PM
But jk thinks:
Nice Clip -- list me among the Bastardis as well! Joe gets extra points for a Popperian methodology: thepredictive power of his theory. Posted by: jk at March 30, 2010 4:19 PMIt's Okay, Scientists are in ChargeC/O The Guardian: "I don't think we're yet evolved to the point where we're clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change," said [Really Smart Human James] Lovelock in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November. "The inertia of humans is so huge that you can't really do anything meaningful." Non-James-Lovelock humans are " too stupid to prevent climate change from radically impacting on our lives over the coming decades." Thank Zeus that the 90-year-old super genius is willing to step into the breach and run the world for awhile. H-T: My buddy Glenn at Instapundit, who just can't stop linking to me...
Posted by John Kranz at 10:55 AM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
WTF? Paragraph 1 - He doesn't think we're clever enough to handle "as complex a situation as climate change." Paragraph 2 - "It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while" ostensibly so that we can "handle" the complex situation. Obvious point number 1: Does suspension of democracy make humans more clever? Obvious point number 2: Is the interaction of economic market forces any less complex? Is there any less human inertia in the realm of commerce? Posted by: johngalt at March 30, 2010 3:14 PMMarch 5, 2010Got Jobs?The House of Representatives recently passed its own version of the largely symbolic, but very expensive, 15 ba-billion dollar jobs bill. What frustrates me most of all about this is how they ignore a simple and inexpensive way to create real, private-sector jobs, increase tax revenue, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. EnergyTomorrow.org sez: Increasing access to oil and natural gas resources could generate nearly 160,000 new, well-paying jobs, $1.7 trillion in revenues to federal, state and local governments and greater energy security. And according to a PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) study, the U.S. oil and natural gas industry already supports 9.2 million American jobs and contributes more than $1 trillion to the national economy, or 7.5 percent GDP. I've said it before and I'll say it again - Many answers to our economic woes are easy to find; if government hacks really intended to fix the economy they would do it.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:29 PM
| Comments (0)
February 24, 2010Maybe Obama's not a Socialist after allOn yesterday's program Bill O'Reilly posed the question, "Is the president [Obama] a socialist?" His answer was that while Obama has pursued socialistic policies he isn't an actual socialist because "Mr. Obama doesn't want to seize your house." I would counter that straw man with, "No, but he want's to seize your income to give a house to thems what ain't gots 'em." Unfortunately I think it gives Obama too much credit to call him a socialist. That would imply that he knows what he's doing. I tend to agree with Randall Hoven at American Thinker who wrote Obama "is the cargo cult president." At least the real Cargo Cult followers built real things that looked like landing strips to get airplanes loaded with food and supplies to land on them. Obama thinks you get factories to produce things and hospitals to fix people by making speeches -- speeches that are reasonably good imitations of speeches given by real leaders. If you're not familiar with the cargo cult tribes of the South Pacific you'll want to read the article to see what he means. If you are familiar then you'll want to read the article to see just how eerily similar the Obama Administration (and the alternative energy movement) is to those primitive peoples.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:56 PM
| Comments (3)
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
Remember what he said to Joe the Plumber? "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." I have no issue with calling Obama a socialist, even if he doesn't understand it. One can be a socialist and not openly espouse the philosophy of collectivism, or even realize himself what he espouses. I was not familiar with the cargo cults, and it is the perfect term for the Obama presidency. His cabinet members, his czars, all his pretenses: even now there's never been a bit of substance. Like the actual cargo cults, underneath the manufactured façade is something incapable of producing something real. It's the ability to produce real things that distinguishes capitalist systems from collectivist ones. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 24, 2010 4:39 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:
Great post, JG. I heard that same comment from O'Reilly and flipped as well. One must suppose that he really doesn't understand that socialism is not an absolute state, it is a continuum. One could argue that the US is on the right of that continuum (exhibiting some socialistic tendancies, [e.g., progressive tax rates, Medicare]) whereas France, Sweden, Greece, etc., are on the left side of the continuum support a wide range of socialistic programs. He certainly does "the folks" no favors when he vastly oversimplifies reality. Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 25, 2010 10:48 AM
But jk thinks:
Bill O'Reilly oversimplifying? Mai Non! Mister O caused me to truly accept Ayn Rand's call for a clear, consistent and empirical philosophy. He is such a perfect example of the obverse. Sure, I agree with him 79.4% of the time. But he believes -- fervently -- in himself 100% of the time. And he is always following his gut, never his head. Posted by: jk at February 25, 2010 1:29 PMFebruary 19, 2010Sea Level is Falling!What will become of the poor endangered snails if we don't stop these falling seas? Clearly, Thomas Friedman is right, things are getting wierd!
Posted by John Kranz at 6:39 PM
| Comments (0)
February 16, 2010Victory Lap!I fear some good people -- even some around ThreeSources -- are too optimistic too soon about the collapse of the global warming debate. What's the Star Wars line? Nice shooting, kid, don't get cocky! But I'll confess we're having a realty really really really good few weeks here. Three Major Firms Pull Out of Climate Change Alliance ConocoPhillips, BP America and Caterpillar pulled out of a leading alliance of businesses and environmental groups pushing for climate change legislation on Tuesday, citing complaints that the bills under consideration are unfair to American industry. UPDATE: The WSJ Ed Page agrees. The departing are BP America, Conoco Phillips and Caterpillar, which were among the original members of USCAP, a coalition of green pressure groups and Fortune 500 businesses that tried to drive a cap-and-trade program into law. Some corporate members concluded that climate legislation was inevitable and hoped to tip it in a more business-friendly direction. Others—ahem, General Electric—are in our view engaged in little more than old-fashioned rent-seeking. Through regulatory gaming, Congress would choose business winners and losers, dispensing billions of dollars in carbon permits to the politically connected.
Posted by John Kranz at 6:16 PM
| Comments (0)
Vancouver Olympic "Legacy"In the wake of Climategate and the Hoaxer Admission some politicians are trying to put the brakes on DAWG related wealth transfer schemes. Not the Canadians. VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwire - Feb. 16, 2010) - Today, Canada's Environment Minister, the Honourable Jim Prentice, announced the Government of Canada's commitment to offset federal greenhouse gas emissions for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. The London summer games are a mere two and a half years away. Any chance that Canada will be not just the first, but the last? Probably not. RELATED: Winter Olympics 2010: London 2012 will not be bailed out, says IOC chief Jacques Rogge Jacques Rogge says the financial position of the London 2012 Olympic Games is so healthy that, unlike the Vancouver Winter Olympics, no guarantees will be needed to cover any potential shortfall. Maybe if BC had skipped the new airport train and "hydrogen highway" ... UPDATE: The race is on to abandon the sinking Climate Change fraud. Investors.com: "Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, seeing which way the snow is blowing, has issued an executive order saying her state will suspend its participation in the emission-control plan or any program that could raise costs for businesses and consumers." Interestingly, despite succeeding Democrat Janet Napolitano, Brewer is a Republican.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:51 PM
| Comments (0)
February 14, 2010No Statistically Significant WarmingProfessor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. Of special note, Professor Jones' data is critical in backing up the famous hockey stick graph created by Penn State's Michael Mann. We're waiting.
Posted by AlexC at 12:17 PM
| Comments (6)
But johngalt thinks:
The first I heard of this stunning admission about the MWP was from Bill Kristol on Fox News Sunday. The liberal members of the panel tried bravely to suggest that DAWG was still a scientifically sound theory but it was clear their heart wasn't in it. I don't think it's possible to overstate the importance of this admission. Despite the contradictory remarks he also made this is tantamount to saying the "skeptics" position is at least as scientifically valid as the IPCC's. Not even Pons and Fleishman ever admitted that their theory of cold fusion might be wrong! Posted by: johngalt at February 14, 2010 6:43 PM
But jk thinks:
Ann Althouse hit this outta the park this weekend: Everyone should perceive flaws! To talk about "sceptics" as the ones who will "seize" upon "evidence" of flaws is unwittingly to make global warming into a matter of religion and not science. It's not the skeptics who look bad. "Seize" sounds willful, but science should motivate us to grab at evidence. It's the nonskeptics who look bad. It's not science to be a true believer who wants to ignore new evidence. It's not science to support a man who has the job of being a scientist but doesn't adhere to the methods of science.Posted by: jk at February 15, 2010 10:19 AM
But johngalt thinks:
EXACTLY right. Yesterday I wondered if this was the tipping point to rename we "skeptics" something more suitable. (At least they no longer call us "deniers.") But I was looking in the wrong place. This is the tipping point to stop referring to Global Warmists as "scientists." A better word would be hoaxer. Or felons. [first comment] Posted by: johngalt at February 15, 2010 3:12 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:
The best comment I saw in these various posts implied that Scientist and Skeptic are synonymous, to which I heartily agree. Who's your Denier now? :-)
But jk thinks:
That's a good T_shirt, nb: "Who's your denier now?" I'll take an LT if you have it, if not an XL. Posted by: jk at February 18, 2010 12:12 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:
Dunno, I think I like "I denied Global Warming before it was cool." Posted by: nanobrewer at February 19, 2010 12:57 AMFebruary 11, 2010Not an AARP card Among ThemA little fun from our friends at Minnesotans for Global Warming. I'd like to send this out to the brothers and sisters in Philly: Hat-tip: Instapundit
Posted by John Kranz at 10:55 AM
| Comments (8)
But johngalt thinks:
Aha! Another clue about our friend LM: She lives in Pennsylvania (or northern Florida.) Posted by: johngalt at February 12, 2010 3:06 PM
But jk thinks:
I don't want to out anybody, but everybody should be reading LM's fine work at PAH2Ods/dt>0 Posted by: jk at February 12, 2010 3:12 PM
But johngalt thinks:
You clearly get out more than I do. Found a nice "Pro-Business Obama" post over there and left a comment. Posted by: johngalt at February 12, 2010 3:40 PM
But Lisa M thinks:
jg--I live in the town next door to AlexC Posted by: Lisa M at February 12, 2010 9:41 PM
But Lisa M thinks:
jg--and your point was well taken! Posted by: Lisa M at February 12, 2010 10:00 PM
But johngalt thinks:
You all seem to be taking the multi-foot, week after week blizzards in stride. We went through that four years ago and I'm relieved that it's hitting someone else this time. It builds character but it's damned hard work! Posted by: johngalt at February 14, 2010 2:11 AMJanuary 4, 2010My New Favorite CEO?I hesitate to post this. I don't want to get they guy in trouble and I don't want to see the Boulder store close down. But Whole Foods chief John Mackey has gone from criticizing ObamaCare (high crime or misdemeanor enough that he had to step down) to suggesting -- in The New Yorker -- that he is reading a book which is skeptical of Deleterious Anthropogenic Warming of the Globe. As Mackey warns, the higher energy prices, compliance costs of new regulations, and the litigation nightmares will lower our standard of living. One thing he forgot to mention is that these new energy taxes and regulations won’t do anything to reduce the earth’s temperature and reducing our economic prosperity cripples our ability to tackle real environmental problems. Yeah, he is still no Friedmanite, his company has a duty to help the poor and save the planet &c. But damn, you have got to salute us candor and dedication to principles. Hat-tip: @Heritage
Posted by John Kranz at 4:47 PM
| Comments (1)
But T. Greer thinks:
Yep, I like him. Pretty close to how I feel about things actually. Posted by: T. Greer at January 5, 2010 1:41 AMHundreds Protest Global Warming!
Hat-tip: my (biological) brother via email. It is pretty germane as we have had very few hours above freezing for the last couple of weeks.
Posted by John Kranz at 10:28 AM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
Heh. Check out "The Blue Peninsula" (1/4/10) and WeatherMapGate (1/3/10) over on http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/ December 25, 2009AGW as FarceA linkety-good Christmas present from a good friend of this blog. Alexander Cockburn's piece in Real World Politics. This admission edges close to acknowledgment of a huge core problem: that "greenhouse" theory violates the second law of thermodynamics, which says that a cooler body cannot warm a hotter body without compensation. Greenhouse gases in the cold upper atmosphere cannot possibly transfer heat to the warmer earth, and in fact radiate their absorbed heat into outer space. (Readers interested in the science can read Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner's "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics," updated in January 2009.)
Posted by John Kranz at 6:32 PM
| Comments (0)
December 23, 2009Getting tired of asking for permission
Get yours here.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:35 PM
| Comments (0)
Questioning the DIt has been such a fine year for DAWG Denyin' -- really 2k9 was one for the books. I went from skepticism that man was causing global warming to skepticism that the globe is warming at all. Good times. If things get better, I may start doubting that the Earth is round... But don't let's forget the D: Is Global Warming, Anthropogenic or not, actually Deleterious? Insty links to a "Copenhagen Coda:" 100 Europeans dead -- just by being on the same continent as VP Gore: More than 100 people have been killed in the cold snap across Europe, with temperatures plummeting and snowfall causing chaos from Moscow to Milan. Rough weather in the US lately has lead to dozens of deaths -- at the risk of jingoism -- in a developed, industrial society. Just sayin'
Posted by John Kranz at 10:22 AM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
Maybe developed, industrial society is the problem? Here at rural Atlantis Farm it reached -29 C and nobody died, man nor beast. Posted by: johngalt at December 23, 2009 1:07 PMDecember 18, 2009Quote of the DayWhat really bothered Roger Simon about the Copenhagen conference: I realized what it was. We had returned to the Middle Ages.
Posted by John Kranz at 7:05 PM
| Comments (0)
December 17, 2009Evolution to ExtinctionSanctimonious progressives ridicule social conservatives for refusing to acknowledge the validity of the theory of evolution. Too bad they are too dense to see the obvious parallel with their refusal to acknowledge the lessons of history. But IBD's Michael Ramirez sees it.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:50 PM
| Comments (1)
But Keith thinks:
I thought they all died in the Ice Age. These dinosaurs oughta stay away from the Gore Effect: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/03/gore-effect-strikes-again-giant-dc.html Quote of the DayRecently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears
Posted by John Kranz at 11:32 AM
| Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:
That is indeed an interesting quote, but it's just more evidence that they rigged the scientific process. In the same article you linked is the real bombshell - evidence that they actually covered up facts. From the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) based in Moscow, as reported by RIA Novosti: The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Here's how it works: IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.Posted by: johngalt at December 17, 2009 1:15 PM
But jk thinks:
I think they are part-and-parcel (whatever the hell that means). Agreed that the Russian cherry-picking/data hiding is a bombshell. Without Petey and Mikey's ability to spike competing thought, it would have been found. December 15, 2009Quote of the DayI spent the day waiting with thousands of others in subfreezing cold to try to get into the proper building to obtain our credentials for the official United Nations Climate Change Conference -- Ronald Bailey, wondering "how anyone expects the U.N. to run the world's climate if it can't manage a queue?"
Posted by John Kranz at 10:30 AM
| Comments (0)
December 13, 2009Baby You Can Drive My CarA good friend of ThreeSources sends this: Awesome.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:02 AM
| Comments (0)
December 10, 2009Ain't Rocket Science, Baby!NYTimes (1920): That Professor Goddard, with his ‘chair’ in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react – to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools. Chicago Boys' David Foster (day before yesterday): What is noteworthy about the original editorial is not just the ignorance, but the arrogance and the outright nastiness. As the AstronauticsNow post points out, “The enlightened newspaper not only ridiculed the idea that rocket propulsion would work in vacuum but it questioned the integrity and professionalism of Goddard.” The post goes on to say that “The sensationalism and merciless attack by the New York Times and other newspapers left a profound impression on Robert Goddard who became secretive about his work (to detriment of development of rocketry in the United States)…” A-damn-men.
Posted by John Kranz at 3:04 PM
| Comments (1)
But AlexC thinks:
Nothing makes you smarter than everyone else quite like a diploma from Journalism school.. It's why they hate bloggers so much. Because bloggers have blown the lid off of their scam.
December 7, 2009Quote of the Day"It's too cold to walk from the hotel to the convention on global warming. Let's take a limo!" -- Simon Scowl Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfill the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."
Posted by John Kranz at 6:25 PM
| Comments (0)
December 3, 2009How Much for Two Light Snacks?Former Vice President Al Gore on Thursday abruptly canceled a Dec. 16 personal appearance that was to be staged during the United Nation's Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, which begins next week. Some possibly exogenous event has caused the Vice President to cancel, but I bet the snack is still on.
Posted by John Kranz at 5:00 PM
| Comments (0)
December 2, 2009"Does it disprove global warming? No, of course not!"In a comment jk predicted that despite Climategate, the DAWG religion "is not going away." As counter argument I give you the ultimate shaper of public opinion - Jon Stewart. Hat tip: Minnesotans for Global Warming
Except for the title quote Stewart hammers the hapless climate changers pretty hard. What do you think the kiddies will remember?
Posted by JohnGalt at 7:03 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
And he did a good job on the Acorn videos as well. Posted by: jk at December 2, 2009 8:13 PMDecember 1, 2009Quote of the Day DeuxThe people who made those adjustments are, we now know, desperately invested in proving the truth of man-made global warming. And they lost the data. That’s more damning than anything else in the emails. If you’re doing important work that you know will be controversial, you don’t lose the data. You document everything you did to the data. You make the data available to others. If you don’t do all of those things, people are right to ignore anything you have published about the data. And that’s what we should do with everything these men have published about man-made global warming. -- Charles Murray
Posted by John Kranz at 4:08 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
But saving the data for independent scientists to repeat your work and corroborate your results is a requirement of science. We're not talking about science here, we're talking about climate change Scientheism. Posted by: johngalt at December 2, 2009 8:59 AMJG 1, JK 0I withheld judgment that ClimateGate was a game changer until it got a little more mainstream coverage. Blog Brother Johngalt more approached the "It's Christmas Day and I got a pony!" view. Well, he has the setup for a pony, and -- while it's still just a blog post -- this <heavenly music>New York Times</heavenly music> blog post by Science Editor John Tierney is a big deal. I’m not trying to suggest that climate change isn’t a real threat, or that scientists are deliberately hyping it. But when they look at evidence of the threat, they may be subject to the confirmation bias — seeing trends that accord with their preconceptions and desires. Given the huge stakes in this debate — the trillions of dollars that might be spent to reduce greenhouse emissions — it’s important to keep taking skeptical looks at the data. How open do you think climate scientists are to skeptical views, and to letting outsiders double-check their data and calculations?
Posted by John Kranz at 11:19 AM
| Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:
It was just obvious to me that this was a game changer. Politics certainly isn't pure but hard science is. A scientist's career is defined by his record of publication. Anyone who dares attempt to explain away what has been exposed here runs a serious risk of ruining his scientific credibility, tainting the entirity of his published work, and putting himself clearly in the bin labeled "politicians" and removing himself from the one labeled "scientists." Climategate represents sort of a "Gore Doctrine" for the climate change cabal. Every one of them is in effect being asked, "Are you with us, or are you with the scientists?" Posted by: johngalt at December 2, 2009 9:10 AM
But jk thinks:
It reinforces the complaints that I have made (rhymes with Snarl Copper) about the unscientificness of the movement. But it does not expose a hoax as some have claimed. The believers truly believe. As long as well funded people believe, it is not going away. November 29, 2009Cleaning up the debateNo, not my bad language...but a few items today augur well for the ClimateGate controversy's improving the quality of debate on climate change. That's all I ask. If DAWG's real, let's study it and plan around it, based on realistic scenarios. The Telegraph (I know a lot of Telegraph readers whom I am sure are uncomfortable with the paper's thoroughness on this story) brings us the story of David Holland, an Electrical Engineer from Northampton who makes the most serious and level statement I have heard on DAWG in many years: Mr Holland, who graduated with an external degree in electrical engineering from London University in 1966 before going on to run his own businesses, told The Sunday Telegraph: "It's like David versus Goliath. Thanks to these leaked emails a lot of little people can begin to make some impact on this monolithic entity that is the climate change lobby." Nailed it. I could be wrong, but I need to see that the other side understands that they could be wrong as well. Brilliant. Hat-tip: Volkh, via Instapundit
Posted by John Kranz at 12:15 PM
| Comments (0)
November 27, 2009Quote of the DayYou know, when you consider that "We're Saving The Planet" is the biggest power/money grabbing scam since "We're Saving Your Souls," whoever leaked/released those e-mails and such is kind of like the modern scientific equivalent of Martin Luther. This person/persons may well have broken the backs of the Global Warming Priests who did everything in their power to make sure that the common man, and those who would oppose them, had no direct access to the Spoken Word of God. -- Col. Douglas Mortimer, writing to Instapundit
Posted by John Kranz at 11:13 AM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
The obvious irony being that science was the first true alternative to the "Spoken Word." These Science-Theists in the climate change cabal [I'd call them Scientologists if it weren't already taken] were willing, able, and compelled to resort to Belief as their method of persuasion, making them no more enlightened than the "bitter" Christian rednecks they so denigrate. Posted by: johngalt at November 27, 2009 3:42 PMNovember 26, 2009Hide the DeclineHappy Thanksgiving from Michael Mann-
Posted by JohnGalt at 6:43 PM
| Comments (0)
November 22, 2009"2009 is also the first year of global governance"Hope and Change for the entire planet. Don't take my word for it. Listen to the new President of the European Union, Herman van Rompuy. Here is my transcription, complete with relevant emphasis: It is my firm intention to ensure that our work develops, over a long-term period, a perspective that goes beyond six months and will allow us to be better organized where the major multi-annual dossiers are concerned, such as the financial perspectives in the Lisbon strategy. I also think that going back to our roots in the European Council could help us to discuss from time to time in an informal and open way the big questions of the European project. I'm thinking more specifically of the economic and social agenda and this is a particularly urgent matter because of the environmental and energy challenges we face and aspirations we have for greater security and justice for all our fellow citizens. We're living through exceptionally difficult times. The financial crisis and its dramatic impact on employment and budgets. The climate crisis which threatens our very survival. A period of anxiety, uncertainty and lack of confidence. Yet these problems can be overcome by a joint effort in and between our countries. Two-thousand-and-nine is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet. Our mission, our presidency, is one of hope supported by acts and by deeds. Brother tg assures us that the climatologists in the climate cabal "are not evil environmentalists bent on hatching a secret plan to rule the world -- they are scientists, no better or worse than the rest of us." That may be true but it doesn't mean their work is not being used by others to "hatch a secret plan to rule the world."
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:32 PM
| Comments (0)
Al Gore Wishes he Never Invented the InternetThis whole post at Minnesotans for Global Warming is hilarious and biting, but here is the part I find most relevant to prior posts of my own: The Global Warming Extremists controlled the argument for years by saying, it's only legitimate science if it's published in certain journals and peer reviewed, and if you control the Journals you control the science. But sadly with Al Gore's invention, the anointed few are losing control, much like the medieval church did with the invention of the printing press.
Posted by JohnGalt at 12:05 PM
| Comments (0)
ClimategateIntapundit notes that Climategate makes the WaPo "In a big way."
Posted by John Kranz at 12:04 PM
| Comments (0)
November 21, 2009The "Prestige Press"Sarah Palin calls them the "Lamestream Media." Mike Rosen calls them the "Dominant Liberal Establishment Media." Brother jk calls them <heavenly music>The New York Times.</heavenly music> Climate change conspirast Michael Mann, of "hockey stick" fame, calls them the "Prestige Press." This excerpt from one of the email thread archives that comprise Climategate definitely is one of the "things that make you go HMMMM." Andrew Revkin to Michael Mann, Sep 29, 2009, 4:30 pm: needless to say, seems the 2008 pnas paper showing that without tree rings still solid picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements about Yamal data-set selectivity. Has he communicated directly to you on this and/or is there any indication he's seeking journal publication for his deconstruct? Michael Mann replies, Sep 29, 2009, 5:08 pm: Hi Andy, Revkin again, Sep 29, 2009, 5:18 pm: thanks heaps. One can almost see the "wink, wink" between the lines when Mann says, "...the prestige press doesn't fall for this sort of stuff, RIGHT?" The two of them certainly appear to be defending the standing of their sycophantic collection of science journals against any dissent - even from other peer-reviewed journals which may happen to be "discredited."
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:56 PM
| Comments (8)
But jk thinks:
Well played, lads. I think the "bombshell" of the "Climategate" emails is to underscore what I have bored y'all with for years: the pro-AWG side may not be evil, but they are not participating in the scientific process. You don't have to get a paper published to contradict a paper. Science moves along as gruesomely as the NFL playoffs. If you publish, your work will be attacked fairly and unfairly and you are expected to defend it. I posted a link last September about this mentality: Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that +/- came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones's response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to "try and find something wrong." The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong. The leaked emails highlight this contempt for Popperian discovery. At the end of the day, whether in the sainted NYT or lowly Australian Sun, I don't think they'll change anybody's mind. They'll feed the deniers' case but the process is too abstract and arcane to dissuade believers. Posted by: jk at November 22, 2009 11:47 AM
But nanobrewer thinks:
This upholds my main criticism of the 'science' arm of the AGW movement from nearly the very beginning. They long ago shucked science for politics, notoriety, and ideology. I feel vindicated in this at the Royal Danish Society's response to the attempt at - in effect - defenestrating Dr. Lomborg by several hundred Danish scientists, whose terse judgment upholding Dr. Lomborg's status and ideas, essentially said "you all say you have degrees?" I've spent years in academic review settings, and never seen anything quite like this, nor any scientist so worried about what the press may or may not "fall for." If Dr. Mann were truly confident in his findings, surely he'd have the confidence that that the truth would out, yes? I'm also quite shocked that Dr. Hockey Stick is still listened to by any institution that regards itself reputable in a scientific sense, as much as if I saw some institute still giving prominence to Drs. Pons or Fleischmann. Posted by: nanobrewer at November 22, 2009 5:53 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:
For what it's worth, "Lamestream media" was coined by Bernie Goldberg. Posted by: Boulder Refugee at November 23, 2009 1:04 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Thanks for that br. I knew Palin wasn't the first but I couldn't remember who was. My favorite is still "Drive-By Media." It's such a perfect description of how they race in to shoot up a story however they like and leave it for others to come in later with the ambulance full of facts. Trouble is, the patient - in this case, objective reporting of the news - often dies anyway. Posted by: johngalt at November 23, 2009 3:05 PM
But jk thinks:
Any Bernie fans around here? To be fair, I think of him as "our Andrew Sullivan." His two books "Bias" and "Arrogance" were incredible for their seriousness, quality, and explosiveness. Game changing admissions from an inside whistleblower. Like Sullivan, it probably hurts to lose all your friends. His hyper-partisan screeds that have followed tarnish the reputation and seriousness of the two masterpieces. Too harsh me?
But Fran Manns thinks:
Climategate Foretold... I guess that's why they're called "lamestream"Andrew Revkin of the New York Times reports on environmental issues, "in print and on his blog, Dot Earth." At least, that's what his NYT bio page says. The day after Climategate exploded on the internet, Revkin wrote about it today. The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists. As one of the leading lamestream media voices, Revkin's seems to be spinning: Yeah, these guys were doing bad science but we're only talking about a handful of scientists. Well we're also only talking about a handful of reporters who tell us that the science is settled, and Revkin is one of them. It turns out his name appears in the FOIA data dump emails. According to Dr. Tim Ball in the story linked as UPDATE 2 on yesterday's post, They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times. The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing and must place his journalistic integrity in serious jeopardy. Paul Chesser at American Spectator wasn't so delicate: Revkin has authored two global warming books and so has a lot to lose himself from this controversy, as his reputation is just as much at stake as the scientists.' Therefore his defense mechanisms are fully engaged. In his blog post yesterday about the revelations, he states that repercussions "continue to unfold" and "there’s much more to explore," but do you really think he can be counted on for follow-up stories about it this week? For my part I have to ask, is Revkin a reporter, a blogger, or a co-conspirator?
Posted by JohnGalt at 12:47 PM
| Comments (3)
But jk thinks:
I did chuckle at the 'graph you excerpted -- but that was pretty far down the post and I thought what came before it was pretty damning. Most significant was the jump from anti-DAWG organs and blogs to <heavenly music>The New York Times</heavenly musc>. Not on the cover of The Nation yet, but it took a couple steps up with this admission.
But nanobrewer thinks:
His comment that "evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted" clearly points to him being a reporter (such as it is these days)!! I think I'm right in stating that the majority Vox Populi is now against what Revkin has bought into, and the scientific community will continue to defy quantification.
But jk thinks:
Point of order: actually nb, this post is jg and not jk. I'm the attractive one, he's the good spellor. Posted by: jk at November 23, 2009 10:46 AMNovember 20, 2009Woodward and Bernstein, call your office!If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. That's the lede of today's Daily Telegraph posting by James Delingpole [author of 'Welcome to Obamaland'] entitled, Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? Delingpole continues: The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That) His cited source is our friend Anthony Watts at Watts Up With That. Somewhere in the afterlife, Michael Crighton is enjoying a belly laugh.
UPDATE 2 (11/21): Canadian Dr. Tim Ball, former climatology professor at University of Winnipeg writes "The Death Blow to Climate Science." CO2 never was a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it was the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science and especially my chosen area of climate science. As I expected now it is all exposed I find there is no pleasure in “I told you so.” UPDATE 3 (11/22): WSJ (in the Politics section) One email from 1999, titled "CENSORED!!!!!" showed one U.S.-based scientist uncomfortable with such tactics. "As for thinking that it is 'Better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us' … as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether we agree with individual articles or not," the email said.
Posted by JohnGalt at 6:02 PM
| Comments (5)
But jk thinks:
Somebody twittered this an hour ago and I wasn't sure when/whether to pull the trigger. I am giddy with excitement but this had the feel of one of those Druge stories that never really "develops." Here's hoping -- it would be an awesome blow for freedom! Posted by: jk at November 20, 2009 6:55 PM
But johngalt thinks:
My brother emailed it at 1:27 this afternoon. Not sure how he got it so quickly. Didja check out the update? Didja? Didja? Posted by: johngalt at November 20, 2009 7:50 PM
But jk thinks:
I did and thank you for it. The Austrailian Sun has been as tough on the warmies as anybody -- I'm waiting for The Nation to certify it. Posted by: jk at November 20, 2009 8:02 PM
But Lisa M thinks:
...coming the day after Al Gore appears on "30 Rock" as part of NBC's "Green Week" indoctrination programming....it just CAN'T be a coincidence! Posted by: Lisa M at November 20, 2009 9:06 PM
But jk thinks:
WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH YOU PEOPLE??? THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!! Posted by: jk at November 21, 2009 3:26 PMNovember 18, 2009Sure that's not Billions of degrees?The Oracle of Carthage speaks: Conan [O'Brien, talk show host]: … to create energy, and it sounds to me like an evil plan by Lex Luthor to defeat Superman. Can you, can you tell me, is this a viable solution, geothermal energy? John Derbyshire points out that there is debate (the science, apparently being not settled) whether the Earth's core is 5000 C or 9000C, but it ain't millions Mister Vice President. Hat-tip: Instapundit
Posted by John Kranz at 10:22 AM
| Comments (7)
But jk thinks:
The Vice President also translates the IPCC esimation of an 18 inch rise in sea level (dubious) to 18 feet. Don't hire him as a lifeguard. Posted by: jk at November 18, 2009 11:41 AM
But johngalt thinks:
But the complete ignoramus DOES have a point. Ground source geothermal heat pumps can deliver 5 or 6 times as much heating or cooling energy to your home than the amount of electrical energy that it takes to pump it. And it doesn't take "millions" or even thousands of degrees. A reliable source of 60 F ground will do the trick. Posted by: johngalt at November 18, 2009 2:42 PM
But jk thinks:
Making fun of a former Vice President, jg, not impugning Gaia's core... Seriously, the real issue -- and I know we all tire of asking -- is to imagine what would have happened had George W. Bush or Sarah Palin said this? Posted by: jk at November 18, 2009 2:50 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Just a PSA brother. As for Gore ... at least he can spell potato. (Come to think of it, are we sure?) Posted by: johngalt at November 19, 2009 2:22 AM
But nanobrewer thinks:
I'd no idea Derbyshire was as well versed in this as he appears to be, but I'm not surprised to find more light than heat at NRO. Being in Power & Energy for as many years as I have has made me despairing of anyone that CNN declares an "energy expert" long before reading the first post on TS. I once interviewed with a company trying to make a go of GT energy: it's pretty much all west of the Miss. R, but well-cited to take advantage of ever-increasing costs in the Golden State (if they ever get free choice again).
But jk thinks:
Derbyshire's good for a lot of heat and light. He's a serious Amateur Mathematician and I am the proud owner of his book, "Prime Obsession" on the Riemann Hypothesis. He signed it for me at the Boulder Bookstore and I teased him that one of his columns pasted on the wall and he'd be run out of town on a rail. He used to post a Math problem of the month and it was fun to try those and try to keep sharp (I majored in Math but left school early to pursue a music career). I lost touch with Derb and a lot of the NRO folk after Lowry took over and they took a populist swing on immigration and social issues. I still have a lot of respect for Derbyshire, Jay Nordlinger, Jonah Goldberg, and a lot of staff. But I dropped my subscription a few years ago and read the online content only when linked. Breaking up is hard to do. November 5, 2009Third Bush TermHere's another rousing cheer for the Obama Administration: American Magazine says that he will be continuing "the failed policies of the Bush Administration" for Four More Years! Reading the climate-change news in recent weeks, one might wonder who won the last election.
Posted by John Kranz at 3:58 PM
| Comments (0)
November 2, 2009Quote of the DayMalaria is only weakly related to temperature; it is strongly related to poverty. It has risen in sub-Saharan Africa over the past 20 years not because of global warming, but because of failing medical response. The mainstay treatment, chloroquine, is becoming less and less effective. The malaria parasite is becoming resistant, and there is a need for new, effective combination treatments based on artemisinin, which is unfortunately about 10 times more expensive.
Posted by John Kranz at 4:20 PM
| Comments (2)
But Keith thinks:
Well, hell. All this time I've been thinking that the rise in sub-Saharan Africa of malaria was the result of the refusal to kill the mosquitos with DDT - an inexpensive and highly effective mosquito slayer, far more so than the highly entertaining Bug-Zapperâ„¢ on my back porch. By all means, if malaria is strongly related to poverty, then by all means, we must transfer untold boatloads of American wealth to Africa to rid the continent of the scourge of malaria. Somebody had to say it. May as well be me. Posted by: Keith at November 2, 2009 5:13 PM
But jk thinks:
Complete agreement on malaria and DDT. But that is one of the things that makes Lomborg so significant: he believes in global warming, he is not against a bit of wealth redistribution, he's a gay European environmentalist! This underscores his belief that there are far better things to focus on than global warming. I enjoyed his personification of Samson -- environmentalists love to care for mythic aggregations at the expense of real individual people. I never mind reminding people of that. October 30, 2009Stop It! You're Making the Mountains Too Tall!Blog Friend sc will surely turn in his SUV keys when he sees this: Taller Mountains Blamed on Global Warming The mountains in Europe are growing taller and melting glaciers are partly responsible, scientists say. Hat-tip: Scrivener
Posted by John Kranz at 4:01 PM
| Comments (3)
But Silence Dogood thinks:
Now I know where to go when the sea level rises. Posted by: Silence Dogood at October 31, 2009 12:15 AM
But johngalt thinks:
Gosh, if I'd known this "scientific fact" before then I'd never have objected to a 20 percent surtax on all American energy use and government
But Silence Dogood thinks:
New theory - Earth warms, glaciers melt, sea level rises, lack of weight of glaciers causes mountains to rise, heating expands earth's crust and everything just balances out. I am still convinced that scientists will someday discover that cancer is genetic in rats and a whole bunch of research will get thrown out. Posted by: Silence Dogood at November 1, 2009 9:41 AMOctober 24, 2009Quote of the DayNo, no, no, no — you have committed apostasy; heresy! You are not allowed to speak of warming except in the most emotional, alarmist tones! This is from a commenter on the Freakonomics blog, requoted in an elegant attempt by a very sharp (scary) scientist to insert actual reason and scientific principles into the debate. Like Freakonomist Steven Levitt, Nathan Myhrvold is not a DAWG-denier I can claim backs me. But, like Levitt, I think he was surprised at the vitriol of the anti-scientific opposition that emerged to question their supposed heterodoxy.
Posted by John Kranz at 6:54 PM
| Comments (0)
September 28, 2009BrrrrrrrrHey bitter clingers, don't forget that weather does not equal climate, or something. The U.S. Northeast may have the coldest winter in a decade because of a weak El Nino, a warming current in the Pacific Ocean, according to Matt Rogers, a forecaster at Commodity Weather Group. Of course if it's warmer than the coldest winter in the past decade, that's proof for global warming. So there.
Posted by AlexC at 7:42 PM
| Comments (2)
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
New York state's last winter was already brutal enough. January had only seven days who high temperatures hit or exceeded 32 F. But you know what global warming alarmists say? Global warming will produce hotter summers and...colder winters. You just can't win against their junk science. But to poke a hole in their nonsense, this summer was unusually cold. The August average was four degrees below normal, which in meteorology is huge. We never hit 100 in the city, and only several days broke 90 (in contrast to the two week-long heatwaves that NYC consistently has). Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 28, 2009 10:41 PM
But jk thinks:
Posted by: jk at September 29, 2009 2:05 PM
Ding, Dong The Stick is Dead!Funny, when other people get the data, global warming always looks a little less dire. The graph above shows what happens to the “Hockey Stick” after additional tree ring data, recently released (after a long and protracted fight over data access) is added to the analysis of Hadley’s archived tree ring data in Yamal, Russia.
Posted by John Kranz at 6:37 PM
| Comments (0)
September 25, 2009The Science is Settled! It's just that we lost it.Read a little Karl Popper. His clarity of thought, reason, and prose is intensely satisfying. I'd read him beating up on Hegel or dictating scientific epistemology with equal glee. The man is awesome. Then, when you have a basic feel for Popperian epistemology, read this tale about the surface data that "proved" global warming: Patrick Michaels's The Dog Ate Global Warming. Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” It seems other scientists would like to access the data set (Popper would approve). But they have been told a changing sequence of storylines for almost as long as the planet has been cooling. Now, it seems the data do not exist. One word. Fraud.
Posted by John Kranz at 3:55 PM
| Comments (1)
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
"He who controls the past controls the present." In my teens, I was trained to be a scientist -- not in economics or social sciences, but in "hard" sciences, mainly chemistry. I can completely affirm that "Why should I make the data available to you" is the most bogus excuse I have ever heard of. What is this junk scientist afraid of? Is he afraid history will record him as the Pons & Fleischmann of man-driven global warming hysteria? That excuse means that a paper could never get published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, at least not one of any worth. But I suppose these junk scientists are more interested in getting on nationally televised nightly news as the next "authority" on global warming. In my first and only college chemistry class, I received top marks for my laboratory log book, something like 110/114. I not only got almost everything correct, but I also showed my work precisely. I was quite proud when mentioning this to my high school chemistry teacher, but she expected nothing less of a good scientist-to-be. Now, in the real world, that less-than-perfect score wouldn't have been the end. A team member, colleague, even a competing peer would have noticed my mistake or questioned my procedure, allowing me to refine my explanation or redo the experiment until it passed all scrunity. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 25, 2009 4:25 PMSeptember 17, 2009Audi Preaches JG's Gospel of PetroleumYou may have seen the new Audi commercial with barrels of oil rolling through the streets and back onto the tankers that brought them here from overseas producers. "If 1/3 of us drove a TDI clean diesel vehicle, we could send back 1.5 million barrels of foreign oil every day." Well, since I love oil, I went to Audi's website looking for a copy of the commercial and found their "Diesel - it's no longer a dirty word" flash presentation. Some highlights: A TDI engine is revved several times while a white hanky is held near the exhaust pipe. Spotless. Well, except for the fact that it would obliterate all of the "crises" that environmentalists have concocted to take us back to the caves. Hey Obama, stimulate THIS! [UPDATED to add video of the commercial from YouTube.] Also of interest, a history of diesel cars in America since 1979. Via AudiofAmerica on YouTube. They call it Audi TDI: TRUTH IN DIESEL By the way, did I mention that I love oil?
Posted by JohnGalt at 12:33 PM
| Comments (3)
But jk thinks:
Our German bruderin who expected that? I would add the VW Commercial: How does your hybrid sound? Makes me laugh every time. Posted by: jk at September 17, 2009 12:58 PM
But Keith thinks:
What time is it? It's time to unpimp your Prius... Posted by: Keith at September 17, 2009 2:23 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Okay, now I'm really, really, ROFLMAO. Posted by: johngalt at September 17, 2009 3:44 PMSeptember 15, 2009Why Linus Drives a HummerNo global warming, no great pumpkins. CHICAGO — A chilly, damp summer in the Midwest and New England might make it difficult for people in those regions to find the perfect Halloween pumpkin. Hat-tip: Don Surber
Posted by John Kranz at 6:30 PM
| Comments (0)
September 13, 2009'When the Ice Age Ended, How Did the Polar Bears Feel?'Clever and insightful commentary from Rupert Wright in Arab Emirates 'The National' newspaper. I can’t recall exactly when it became unfashionable to be sceptical about climate change. However, I can vividly remember where I was when just as I was giving my trenchant views that it’s all a lot of tosh, I looked around the table and realised that I had gone too far. “Still,” I said. “It’s clear that we must do something for the polar bears. Absolutely imperative.” He's all wrong about solar power of course but it's good to see these other refreshing points of view in print. But then, it shares pages with the story 'Omanis Frown on 'half-naked' expats.'
Posted by JohnGalt at 10:41 AM
| Comments (4)
But jk thinks:
Great, great post -- though I was must admit that the photos for the "half-naked expats" were really disappointing. I have thought from early on that geoengineering might be the answer. Bjorn Lomborg is now on board. Now it strikes me that we would be giving the UN control of the weather -- is that a good idea?
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
Well, jk, using the rhetorical trick we're so fond of, why not? After all, the UN has that impeccable track record. It successfully kept out communists bent on destroying liberty -- from the very first conference -- and look at its successes toppling the USSR and Saddam's Iraq, and preventing Iran and North Korea from acquiring nuclear technology. What could go wrong? Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 13, 2009 8:29 PM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
A friend saw a particularly beautiful sunset the other night, and I replied that it's such a wonderful experience that Obama should mandate them throughout the United States. Like with health care, it's patently unfair that anyone should experience more of a great sunset than anyone else. But unfortunately atmospheric conditions are not equal everywhere, so we'll all have to be content with only smidgens of good sunsets. Finally getting to the article about the ex-pats. For shame! Good heavens! "His wife was wearing a blue skirt showing off most of her suntanned legs." Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 13, 2009 8:34 PM
But T. Greer thinks:
Geoengineering makes me nervous. Man is great, but he is not all conquering. Not yet. The cost of messing up there could far exceed the cost of other climate change -- natural or man made. Posted by: T. Greer at September 14, 2009 5:20 AMLet's put it to a voteAC's news blog on cold summer temperatures inspired me to Google "coming ice age." Turns out there's a new study that shows, well, I'll let a couple of others tell you: Study co-author Jonathan Overpeck quoted by Andrew Revkin in the NY Times: 'Global Warming Could Forestall Ice Age' The human-driven buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere appears to have ended a slide, many millenniums in the making, toward cooler summer temperatures in the Arctic, the authors of a new study report. Ethel Fenig in the American Thinker: 'Good News About the Coming Ice Age' The situation seems like a win, win one for everyone. Everyone that is except Al Gore, Michael Moore and all the other unscientific minds who invented the non crisis in the first place. And then there are the real scaremongers, like The Independent's Johann Hari - 'Our Heat is Turning the Arctic into an Alien Landscape' and Earthweek - 'Study Documents How Global Warming is "Manmade." So there's clearly plenty of room for interested parties to spin this new "synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records from poleward of 60°N covering the past 2000 years" into "proof" of whatever they want the public to believe (or fear.) But even if we take the findings at face value, who could argue that it is imperative or even desireable to prevent future warming? On the one hand we are destined for "ecosystem stress" and "rapid melting of Greenland's great ice sheet." On the other hand, as the Times story points out, "much of the northern hemisphere" could once again be buried "under a mile or more of ice." Which is a greater threat to all life on earth?
Posted by JohnGalt at 9:54 AM
| Comments (0)
September 12, 2009Weather is not ClimateKeep repeating that as you curl up in a fetal position. The average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. August was also below the long-term average. The analysis is based on records dating back to 1895.
Posted by AlexC at 5:46 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
"Climate is what you expect - weather is what you get." I'd give attribution if I could remember who I heard say that. Posted by: johngalt at September 13, 2009 9:54 AMJuly 21, 2009Wait a Cotton-Pickin' MinuteThe Sun is what makes the Earth hot? Who knew? I love the patronizing NYTimes "some global warming skeptics..." locution. Apparently, the skeptics are busy predicting sunspot activity. This one skeptic is more interested in correlating climate change to sunspot activity so that non skeptics do not take us back to the caves. Hat-tip: Instapundit
Posted by John Kranz at 3:30 PM
| Comments (0)
July 8, 2009The End of LibertyIt's been a great run, and you have to think that the ideas of Locke, Jefferson, and Madison will capture another generation somewhere, someday. But it is over. Why so blue? Sunspots. A new group of sunspots developed, and while not dramatic by historic standards, the spots were the most significant in many months. The lack of sunspots has allowed the Earth to cool, demonstrating dispositive linkage between CO2 output and global temperature. Now that there are sunspots, the earth will again heat up. The UN will attribute this to affluence and we will all march back to the caves on their Malthusian nonsense. It's been a gas.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:55 PM
| Comments (1)
But Boulder Refugee thinks:
Perhaps the bigger concern is the diminishing solar winds. The solar winds are charged particles that create the heliosphere, a sphere that protects the solar system from dangerous cosmic rays emitted from things like novas and supernovas. Without the heliosphere, gamma rays from outerspace can destroy life on earth. NASA estimates that the solar winds are the weakest they've been in 50 years and that the heliosphere has decreased as much as 20%. Obviously, there is a correlation between man-made greenhouse gasses and the decline of the heliosphere. Life as we know it hangs in the balance. Quick, somebody call Al Gore! Posted by: Boulder Refugee at July 8, 2009 1:58 PMJuly 3, 2009GHG/CO2/AGW Hypothesis Fails "Ultimate Scientific Test"More than one person on these pages has declared that there is a "consensus amongst the majority of serious scientists that man made global warming is a real phenomenon." The obvious implication is that anyone who disputes this is either an un-serious scientist or a crackpot. I now ask any of you who may still hold that belief, which label would you apply to Dr. Alan Carlin, the EPA's own Senior Operations Research Analyst? Previous ThreeSources blog posts here, here and here have referenced the internal dissent by Dr. Carlin against the hasty and apparently premeditated regulation of CO2 as an atmospheric "pollutant." In Carlin's own words, here is what he has to say about the state of the GHG/CO2/AGW "science." I have become increasingly concerned that EPA has itself paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation. If they should be found to be incorrect at a later date, however, and EPA is found not to have made a really careful independent review of them before reaching its decisions on endangerment, it appears likely that it is EPA rather than these other groups that may be blamed for any errors. Restricting the source of inputs into the process to these these two sources may make EPA’s current task easier but it may come with enormous costs later if they should result in policies that may not be scientifically supportable. This is profound enough in its own right. But there is more: It is of great importance that the Agency recognize the difference between an effort that has consumed tens of billions of dollars by the IPCC, the CCSP, and some additional European, particularly British, funding over a period of at least 15 years with what I have been able to pull together in less than a week. (...) What is actually noteworthy about this effort is not the relative apparent scientific shine of the two sides but rather the relative ease with which major holes have been found in the GHG/CO2/AGW argument. In many cases the most important arguments are based not on multi-million dollar research efforts but by simple observation of available data which has surprisingly received so little scrutiny. The best example of this is the MSU satellite data on global temperatures. Simple scrutiny of this data yields what to me are stunning observations. Yet this has received surprisingly little study or at least publicity. In the end it must be emphasized that the issue is not which side has spent the most money or published the most peer-reviewed papers, or been supported by more scientific organizations. The issue is rather whether the GHG/CO2/AGW hypothesis meets the ultimate scientific test—conformance with real world data. What these comments show is that it is this ultimate test that the hypothesis fails; this is why EPA needs to carefully reexamine the science behind global warming before proposing an endangerment finding. This will take more than four days but is the most important thing I can do right now and in the coming weeks and months and possibly even years. Emphasis mine. In Dr. Carlin's 85 page review report, composed in about 4 of the 5 days he was given to review the Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act he made 19 specific recomended revisions to the TSD. In the Executive Summary section he pretty much sums up his opinion with this: These inconsistencies between the TSD analysis and scientific observations are so important and sufficiently abstruse that in my view EPA needs to make an independent analysis of the science of global warming rather than adopting the conclusions of the IPCC and CCSP without much more careful and independent EPA staff review than is evidenced by the Draft TSP. Adopting the scientific conclusions of an outside group such as the IPCC or CCSP without thorough review by EPA is not in the EPA tradition anyway, and there seems to be little reason to change the tradition in this case. If their conclusions should be incorrect and EPA acts on them, it is EPA that will be blamed for inadequate research and understanding and reaching a possibly inaccurate determination of endangerment. Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until about 2030 given the 60 year cycle described in Section 2) there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain much of the available data.
Posted by JohnGalt at 5:37 PM
| Comments (3)
But jk thinks:
Like the folks at Americans for Limited Government, I'll label Dr. Carlin an American hero. Posted by: jk at July 3, 2009 6:45 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Yes, the Presidential Medal of Freedom is an excellent idea. When I think of Dr. Alan Carlin and what he's done, one image comes to mind. Tank Man. Posted by: johngalt at July 4, 2009 12:21 PM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
"Serious scientist": one who agrees with liberals. Any other scientist isn't even called "unserious," but labeled a crackpot or Flat-Earthist. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 5, 2009 9:09 AMJuly 1, 2009That Damn Balance of Powers Thingy Again!Even Glenn Greenwald (not a frequent linkee 'round these parts) finds the following quote "creepy." It's "stunning that he would ignore the wishes not just of his president, but of his constituents and the country," said an administration official. This directed at a Democratic Congressman from Texas who had the temerity to vote against Cap'n Trade. Greewald: This has become an emerging theme among both the White House and House leadership: that progressive membe ers of Congress have an obligation to carry out "the wishes of the President" even when they disagree (now, apparently, it's "stunning" when they defy his dictates). Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) was not opposing the bill to protect Texas families from a 300% tax on electricity, mind you -- he felt that the bill was too lenient on polluters.It remains a story without a hero -- but with a couple more villains.
Posted by John Kranz at 1:57 PM
| Comments (0)
June 27, 2009Clean Energy "misinformation"I'd barely finished yelling at my television during C-SPAN coverage of the H.R. 2454 vote before the president started in on the senate: "My call to every senator, as well as to every American, is this," he said. "We cannot be afraid of the future. And we must not be prisoners of the past. Don't believe the misinformation out there that suggests there is somehow a contradiction between investing in clean energy and economic growth." Misinformation? I think John Boehner said it best during his "fillibuster" yesterday (via DVR): 6:04 PM EDT [Reading from the 300 page back-door amendment.] "Now let me get to page 83. Consumer Behavior Research. The Secretary of Energy is authorized to establish a research program to identify the factors affecting consumer actions to conserve energy and to make improvements in energy efficiency. Through the program the Secretary will make grants to public and private institutions of higher education to study the effects of consumer behavior on total energy use." Then there's this: Obama said the bill would create jobs, make renewable energy profitable and decrease America's dependence on foreign oil. Does nobody recognize this tacit admission that renewable energy is NOT profitable?
Posted by JohnGalt at 4:10 PM
| Comments (5)
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
Obama practices true faith-based politics. You have to believe he has some kind of magic, otherwise this whole planet is so screwed. Of course, I'm just being logical when I point out that whatever profitable "renewable" energy there is, by definition entrepreneurs look at it without any need for government. Government action can only direct us away from what is genuinely profitable. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 28, 2009 7:04 PM
But Keith thinks:
"Obama, practices faith-based politics." So true. So do the people who voted for him; they were true believers in that magic. When I was in the Philippines during the run-up to the 2004 Presidential election there, I read an article in one of their newspapers in which a number of ordinary people were asked who they were voting for and why. I laughed as I read about one older woman who answered "I am voting for Fernando Poe Jr. because he has magic, and he will use that magic to fix the economy!" (One of Poe's best-known movie roles was as the character Flavio, a blacksmith who forges a magical sword to right wrongs in "Ang Panday.") Yeah, I laughed because it's funny when stupid happens to someone else's country. It's not so funny now. Thank you, 52%, for all that magical thinking. Posted by: Keith at June 29, 2009 11:53 AM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
Which is worse, voters who ascribe supernatural powers to the politicians they support, or people who support politicians with full knowledge of how "democracy" will give them by taking from others? Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 29, 2009 4:14 PM
But jk thinks:
Well said, Perry, I think I'll take the witch doctors. Posted by: jk at June 29, 2009 4:22 PM
But Keith thinks:
Perry: I think you've just given us what may be the perfect description of the difference between stupid and evil. As for your question, I'm with jk, and I'll go with the former: the unsmart are so much easier to live among without being harmed than the ungood. Posted by: Keith at June 29, 2009 4:56 PMScience and politics at EPAJK asked for proof. Here's a start. Anthony Watts has more on the CEI charge that EPA ignored science disproving the absurd notion that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Watts also has one of the internal EPA email messages and a conversation back and forth between a San Francisco journalist and an anonymous EPA employee. Fascinating. UPDATE: Investor's Business Daily is now reporting the story above, citing them as sources. This could be a stepping-stone to the MSM next week. Maybe not Diane Sawyer, but there's got to be one journalist and editor out there who are willing to risk administration blacklisting to get props for "breaking" the story.
Posted by JohnGalt at 10:27 AM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
Quod erat Demonstratum, jg. Nice sleuthing. Posted by: jk at June 27, 2009 11:56 AM
But jk thinks:
And, while we're on the CEI, don't miss The Silence of the Regulated (HT Insty) Posted by: jk at June 27, 2009 1:10 PMEmissions scheme passes Australia's House - stalls in SenateIn 2007 Australian PM John Howard became Global Warming's "first major political victim." His successor, Kevin Rudd, pledged to sign the Kyoto Protocol. This year Rudd sought passage of a government mandated emissions reduction plan. The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed. The preceding account by Kim Strassel uses this and many more instances to show that the US is out of step with the international community on climate change. The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Nancy Pelosi's House clearly didn't care about any of this in today's vote for global economic suicide. It's hard to imagine that the Senate will ignore it too.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:29 AM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
Awesome post (My Kim Strassel quota was exceeded or I'd've linked). Her editorial is a great compilation of serous grounds for skepticism -- just in case anybody needs an article to forward to a fence-sitting friend or relative or Senator. Posted by: jk at June 27, 2009 12:00 PMJune 26, 2009"Balanced" and "sensible" climate change bill passes HouseThat's the spin thrown on the bill by President Obama yesterday. Surely it was far from either of those qualities at the time, but prior to passage another 300 pages were shoe-horned in ... at 3 am this morning! [What in the hell is the fixation that Washington politicians have with that time of day?] Minority Leader Boehner said the obvious:
Rep. Geoff Davis, a Republican from Kentucky, said the cap-and-trade bill represented the "economic colonization of the heartland" by New York and California. I'd hoped to insert a bulleted list of ways that this bill is a colonoscopy for America but then I realized, Who the hell knows what it does... it jumped from 1200 pages to 1500 overnight! But it's far from law yet. Next stop: the Senate. (Note that as the lions share of H.R. 2454 was written by the environmental lobby this post qualifies for the coveted "dirty hippies" category.) And kudos to JK for naming the 8 RINOs who voted for this treasonous piece of crap. Just four of them switching sides would have spiked it.
Posted by JohnGalt at 7:55 PM
| Comments (6)
But AlexC thinks:
That jagoff Kirk wants to run for Obama's former Senate seat. Good luck with that. Posted by: AlexC at June 26, 2009 11:33 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Of the 44 Democrats voting no, one is from Colorado and four are from PA. I'll tell you what - my respect for John Salazar (CO-3) just grew three sizes larger. Posted by: johngalt at June 27, 2009 10:06 AM
But jk thinks:
Well done, Mister Leader! I tend to give up before trying on my representation, but Colorado's two freshman Democrat Senators could well feel a little heat on this issue. To take up an Instapundit riff, having the next Tea Party outside of Senator Udall's or Bennett's office might be a better blow for freedom than a photo-op outside the Capitol. Posted by: jk at June 27, 2009 11:50 AM
But johngalt thinks:
If Mark Udall might face heat on this issue in 2010 he doesn't seem to feel it at the moment. One of the stories I read yesterday said a few senators were working the halls of congress twisting arms for a yes vote. Mark Udall (D-CO) was the one mentioned by name. I'm in for a TEA (Taking Energy Away) party at one of Markey's offices. Instead of pitchforks we'll carry empty gas cans. (Shall we try to organize something for next week?) Posted by: johngalt at June 27, 2009 3:27 PM
But jk thinks:
I'm thinking we'd have better luck with Bennett, but that it would be a good exercise to scare Senator Udall. He is used to catering to CO-2 collectivists and a reminder that Boulder is not the whole state, dude, might be a good lesson. They're pushing on Twitter for GOP defectors (great Twitter tag #capandtr8tors) to change their vote as you suggest with Markey. Is that realistic? I cannot imagine that the same effort would not be better directed at the Senate, but I am open to discussion. Posted by: jk at June 27, 2009 6:29 PM
But HB thinks:
Best quote: “I look forward to spending the next 100 years trying to fix this legislation,†said California Republican Brian Bilbray. Posted by: HB at June 27, 2009 10:15 PMCap'n TradeI was stuck at the hospital all day (drug trials, I'm fine!) but blog friend SugarChuck reports that some Congressional Republicans put up a good fight today. But, as you've no doubt heard, 219 house members thought that the Federal government should control energy use and only 212 did not. I have no consoling words, but at least we get a good Quote of the day: Never have so few stolen so much from so many to achieve so little -- @VodkaPundit Stephen Green (VodkaPundit) also retweets the GOP defectors: "GOP votes for #capandtrade McHugh(NY) Reichert(WA) Smith(NJ) Lance(NJ) LoBiondo(NJ) Bono Mack(CA) Castle(DE) Kirk(IL)"
Posted by John Kranz at 7:43 PM
| Comments (0)
June 25, 2009Our Administration Will Be About Science!-- unless, of course, it interferes with our politics! Scientific findings at odds with the Obama Administration’s views on carbon dioxide and climate change are being suppressed as a result of political pressure, officials at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) charge. This is from the CEI which I consider a reputable group. I have no proof beyond their assertion and do not expect many media outlets to dig too hard on this. But this would be huge if proven true. Hat-tip: Instapundit
Posted by John Kranz at 11:31 AM
| Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:
Let's talk about "if proven true" for a moment: If a tree falls in the forest and Diane Sawyer is not there to hear it, did it even make a noise? It could be as plain as the nose on either of our faces but if Diane Sawyer says "[There were] more than 50 deaths resulting from mass shootings in the past month alone" then the 208,333 times a gun was used to deter a crime each month may just as well have never happened. As an aside - My personal favorite version of the old relativism joke I paraphrased above is: "If a man speaks in the forest and there isn't a woman there to hear him is he still wrong?" Perhaps this now needs to be updated to "white man" and "wise latina woman."
But jk thinks:
I think we would need something more than the partisan but wonderful CEI. If they are able to get teh actual report or if Congress could investigate, it could certainly happen without Diane Sawyer. I'm just careful not to get too excited too soon. Posted by: jk at June 25, 2009 1:07 PMJune 19, 2009StoptheEPA.comDo you need more than the url? The Heritage Foundation has set up a website that allows you to send comments to the EPA. Also don't miss their blog post on Crony-enviro-capitalism. But don't worry, says Obama EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. She told the New York Times earlier this year, "We are poised to be specific on what we regulate and on what schedule." In other words, just as the Obama Treasury Department played political favorites when bailing out General Motors and Chrysler, rewarding big labor allies while punishing average investors and secured creditors, the Obama EPA is poised to play the exact same games while enforcing the Clean Air Act.
Posted by John Kranz at 1:49 PM
| Comments (0)
June 13, 2009Climate ChangeGood Friend of this blog, T Greer, has an excellent post on "Death by Climate." An NGO headed by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan asserts that climate change currently is responsible for 300,000 deaths a year. Our friend disagrees. From here it is easy to see the fallacy inherit in any attempt to label a death (or even a group of deaths) as "caused" by climate change. There does not exist a single causality attributed to climate change whose death cannot be sourced more directly to factor of the socio-economic sort. In cases where the deaths are indirectly attributed to climate change** (such as the cholera epidemics or crop failures that often follow flooding in underdeveloped areas) the link between death and weather is even more tenuous; each degree of separation between climatic trends and causality trends simply multiplies the number of factor leading to the end result that are more important than climate change. TG is a lot more generous with Annan and the Global Humanitarian Forum than I am (as I mention in a lenghy, black-helicopterish comment) but there is much I agree with in his thoughtful post.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:18 AM
| Comments (2)
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
Don't be surprised at the claim. It has the same unscientific basis by which Obama says "___ jobs saved or created." On the other hand, the ban on DDT has led to hundreds of thousands of African deaths each year. This is directly provable, because they died from disease x (malaria) that could have been prevented by action y (spraying pesticides). Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 15, 2009 2:19 AM
But T. Greer thinks:
Jk- Thanks for the link. I have responded to your comment, and agree with you to a large extent. It is a sad reflection of our society that claims such as this are accepted and supported by the eletes who really should know better. Posted by: T. Greer at June 15, 2009 4:33 PMMay 22, 2009What if global-warming fears are overblown?Gee, is that even possible? I thought the "evidence is in" and "the science is settled?" Lest anyone think my prior post is nothing but mere invective, read this interview by Fortune magazine's Jon Birger of veteran climatologist and IPCC contributor John Christy (who has no ties to "Big Oil"). Birger learned that... ...the surface temperature readings upon which global warming theory is built have been distorted by urbanization. Due to the solar heat captured by bricks and pavement and due to the changing wind patterns caused by large buildings, a weather station placed in a rural village in 1900 will inevitably show higher temperature readings if that village has, over time, been transformed into small city or a suburban shopping district, Christy says. Birger concludes by asking Christy, What about the better-safe-than-sorry argument? Even if there's a chance Gore and Hansen are wrong, shouldn't we still take action in order to protect ourselves from catastrophe, just in case they're right? Hat Tip: A colleague of jg's college-professor dad who emailed the link to him with a note, "Maybe you were right all along." Click 'Continue reading' to see what dad said to him in reply. (Is Fortune Magazine considered an MSM outlet?) Richard,
Of course I am right, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever. The computer models used to predict climate change and the computers used to run them are not sufficient to model what is already known and mitigating factors that we would call negative feedback, that makes the climate systems stable, are not well understood and are almost completely neglected. Whenever one of these “climate researchers” want to publish a paper all they have to do is alter a parameter in their computer program and speculate about the results. The government funds practically no research to on climate research other than to prove man is causing it; which he isn’t. Anyone in this research community including John Christy who says anything counter to the “accepted facts” is all but ignored. John Christy is too high profile to have his funds cut-off; he is the Government’s token critic. The present administration has much it wants to do and uses climate crises to cry wolf. Hopefully, the inmates will ultimately be put back into their cages and sanity will reign. Maybe it will happen before they bankrupt the country, but I am not at all hopeful.
Posted by JohnGalt at 6:48 PM
| Comments (3)
But T. Greer thinks:
This last point cannot be stressed enough. If we listen to the numbers coming from the IEA, we will need to build 32 nuclear plants, 17,000 wind turbines, and 215 million square meters of solar panels every year in order to hit a 50% decrease in emissions by 2050. Hansen, et. al. say we need to reduce emissions by 80% to make a difference.
But johngalt thinks:
Yes, quite. To put this in a perspective we can understand, if the proposed carbonless energy sources were "invested" for the next 50 years instead of only 40 they would produce the same amount of energy as is contained in just under 3.5 CMO (cubic miles of oil.) Remember that 1 CMO is approximately the annual world oil consumption. So this 40-50 year investment could be replaced by increasing world oil production by 7 to 9 percent over the same time period. All of that extra "investment" for just 0.07 degrees of cooling? Posted by: johngalt at May 25, 2009 12:48 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Upon reflection, my conclusion should be stated from a different perspective. The 40-50 year "investment" in carbonless energy doesn't need to be "replaced" as I said by 7 to 9 percent increase in oil production. Instead this is the amount of current oil production that the massive proposed expenditure would replace. In other words, after untold trillions of dollars of other people's money is spent by government bureaucrats for 40 years we'll still consume at least 91% of the oil we now use (and the earth might be 0.07 degrees cooler than it would otherwise have been. Posted by: johngalt at May 28, 2009 12:07 PMOrwell predicted Albert Gore Jr.For your Friday enjoyment, here's a great new Global Warming video from Competitive Enterprise Institute. There are some good fact/fiction counterpoints if you follow the original link. Hat Tip again to www.globalwarming.org. This is an excellent blog with many current stories on the topic. Highly recommended. Blogroll candidate. WARNING: The recommended site is dot ORG. The easily confused site at dot COM is a kool-aid site. For example, they warn: The prevailing counter opinion is that all that is presently perceived to be global warming is simply the result of a normal climactic swing in the direction of increased temperature. Most proponents of this global warming ideology have definitive social and financial interests in these claims. HA! Pot calls kettle black! (I wonder if they recognize the irony that their site carries the dot COM, i.e. commercial, URL extension? Probably not.) At any rate, the first defense they offer is an ad hominem. Sad.
Posted by JohnGalt at 12:21 PM
| Comments (0)
May 15, 2009For Sale: The Golden StateI really wanted to include a little graphic showing the state of California with a FOR SALE sign planted in it right about at Sacramento. Well, just use your imagination. California's Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed selling a number of state landmarks (state ownership of which is in some doubt) to raise cash and balance the state budget. One-time proceeds are estimated at $1 billion. The budget shortfall is $15.4 billion, just for the next fiscal year. Obviously state officials need more stuff to put in their garage sale. Hmm, I wonder what California has that someone might be willing to pay cash for (other than federal bailout dollars, that is.) Gee, that's a tough one! According to this handy interactive graphic the total government lease royalty revenue that would result from lifting current oil and gas production moratoria is $1695 billion and of that amount, $1386 billion of it comes from the outer continental shelf (Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf regions combined.) A summary report here provides numerous tables showing the breakdown by area but none were clear enough for me to cite specifically. Let it suffice to say the California budget shortfall, at $15.4 billion, is a bit over 1 percent of the possible OCS government windfall. If the Governator would simply work toward responsible development of his state's natural resources he could balance its budget overnight, and for decades to come. As an added bonus, the productive half of America might even throw in legalization of pot!
Posted by JohnGalt at 10:46 AM
| Comments (5)
But jk thinks:
I'm just happy the Governator is listening to Reason TV as they point out some of the goodies that are available. Great point on the revenues from energy production. If we could duct tape Senators Boxer and Feinstein in a box* for a couple of days and override the bans, would the Golden State's production be viable at current prices? *ThreeSources does not recommend or condone violent behavior directed at legitimately elected officials. This was merely a dramatic device to suggest possible passage of legislation that the current Senatorial representation of California has long opposed. Posted by: jk at May 15, 2009 11:42 AM
But Keith thinks:
California going bankrupt while refusing to pump all that nice, shiny, revenue-producing oil isn't far removed from half a billion people starving in India while porterhouses and top sirloins on four legs walk around unmolested and uneaten on their city streets. THERE'S a worthy run-on sentence to make a well-deserved point. The picturesque tone of voice is just a fringe benefit. All that being said, I must once again apologize to the whole nation for my state. Let's just face it: we're heap plenty stupid. We gave you Feinstein, Boxer, Schwarzenegger, Waters, and come next Tuesday, we'll see whether we're still stupid. I'm sorry. I'm really, really sorry. Posted by: Keith at May 15, 2009 4:32 PM
But jk thinks:
A feller in the 2nd Congressional Colorado district is not going to cast any stones (not without a permit, Kieth). The Reason video reminded me the hope I had for Ahnold. All humor of the video aside, it underscores just how bankrupt (philosophically) the system is. Watch those union folk -- those teachers "Ain't got none attention of giving nothing up!" Schwarzenegger was a rare chance: he had the star power to get elected as an individualist in a collectivist-leaning state and he had toughness to stand up to the opposition. The California Public Union Sector trained him like a puppy. Is there another one left, Yoda? Posted by: jk at May 15, 2009 5:02 PM
But johngalt thinks:
I see today evidence that the "sell Cahl-ee-fohrn-ya's state landmarks" proposal was little more than a campaign stunt. It was aimed at bolstering support for tomorrow's tax increase ballot measures (which Keith alluded to in his comment.) The half-dozen or so initiatives would raise taxes to collect, as I understand it, an additional $6 billion per year for 3 years from CA taxpayers (read: those "white people" who gathered on Capitol steps nationwide last month). If they fail, as the polls suggest most will, the supposed result will be "deep spending cuts." Good NED, can we get some of those ballot measures in OUR state too?? Posted by: johngalt at May 18, 2009 1:36 PM
But Keith thinks:
johngalt: for more on tomorrow's wacky ballot measures in California, see here: I did an update yesterday pointing my readers back here, and we have a lively conversation going among my readers in which you're always welcome to participate. Heaven knows a good lesson in free-market economics and the proper role of government is sorely needed by Californians, especially our elected overlords... Posted by: Keith at May 18, 2009 1:55 PMMay 13, 2009Now That''s Inconvenient!Hat-tip: Scrivener.net
Posted by John Kranz at 5:13 PM
| Comments (0)
May 11, 2009Fuel Economy BuffooneryIt was bound to happen: The 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid - "The most fuel efficient mid-sized sedan in America." EPA rated 41 mpg city/36 mpg highway. You read that right, brother. It is supposedly MORE fuel efficient in town than on the open road. ("Smart" drivers will doubtless pull over and stop every mile or so to improve their highway mileage.)
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:39 PM
| Comments (2)
But Keith thinks:
I'm assuming - more efficient in town than on the four-lane because in town, the carbon-based engine shares duty with the electric motor, while freeway speeds on the four-lane require full-time use of the gasoline burner, because battery power can't push you along at a speed needed for freeway driving? Alternative cynical theory: getting out and pushing can be done on city streets only. Posted by: Keith at May 11, 2009 4:36 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Yes, more or less. And the salient point is this: What is the battery's state of charge at the beginning and end of the test? Posted by: johngalt at May 11, 2009 5:17 PMApril 29, 2009Climate Change "Final Solution"Brother BR's George Carlin post may have been a re-run but I'm pretty sure this one isn't. Satirist Progressivista says turning off our lights for one hour every year isn't going to get the job done in the cause against global climate change. It's time for the "final solution." So, next year when Earth Hour comes around again — instead of having everyone turn off their lights for one hour — we should have them drink green-colored Kool-Aid laced with potassium chloride, which just happens to be not only the poison Jim Jones gave to his followers, but also the one many abortionists use to terminate those dreaded unbabies.
Posted by JohnGalt at 4:11 PM
| Comments (3)
But Boulder Refugee thinks:
Sounds like a rather modest proposal. Posted by: Boulder Refugee at April 29, 2009 9:53 PM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid and all their state-worshipping followers can be first. What a vastly improved world we'd have! And I'm not joking here. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at April 30, 2009 12:45 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Not only is it "modest" it is also guaranteed to "work." Posted by: johngalt at May 1, 2009 12:38 PMGeorge Carlin Saves the PlanetThis video has probably been around awhile given that George Carlin hasn't, but it calls out the hubris of the Green Movement in a way that only George Carlin can. Hat tip: John E, The Refugee's B-i-L
Posted by Boulder Refugee at 1:15 PM
| Comments (4)
But jk thinks:
You New folks. Actually, HB posted this last June when we lost Mr. Carlin. My comment from then, however, stands: "De mortuis nil nisi bonum. Carlin has brought me great joy in his career and this clip is entertaining and thought provoking. I'll agree it is vintage Carlin. "I have had a transcription of this emailed to me many times, and I was always a bit put off by his conclusion. I love the idea that Earth is tough; I am less enamored of the idea that human life is insignificant. We have free will, we wrote Kubla Khan, An Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations, the Magna Carta, and the Declaration of Independence. "Funny and enjoyable skit, but we are not fleas. "Me be too grouchy?"
But Boulder Refugee thinks:
In that case, The Refugee must invoke another old comedian, Steve Martin: "Well, excuuuuse me!" Posted by: Boulder Refugee at April 29, 2009 2:17 PM
But jk thinks:
As the kiddies say, LOL. I just thought I recognized this. I have received this from many folks "of my stripe" on DAWG (dogs have stripes?) yet I am so far the only one offended by his estimation of human potential. Posted by: jk at April 29, 2009 2:46 PM
But johngalt thinks:
I guess I neglected to comment in round one, so here's what I should have said. I disagree with your summarization that Carlin called humanity insignificant, or said "we are fleas." What he said was that compared to the magnitude of earth and its ecosystem the impact of the presence of humans is like "a bad case of fleas." The earth changes, he said, with natural disasters of every stripe. The key word here is "natural." The only life forms that survive are the ones that can adapt to those natural changes. Our rational mind makes us one of the most adaptable of all species, but the crap that some humans impose on the rest of us in the name of "saving the planet" only makes this adaptation more difficult. Individuals among us did, as you say, create many great works. But whether literature, architecture, sculpture or scientific understanding, what difference does it make to the earth? Without humans here to preserve those things they'll vanish in our wake. No, in super slow-mo instant replay I say Carlin got the call right. Posted by: johngalt at April 29, 2009 4:09 PMApril 22, 2009It's Not Easy Being GreenHeritage updates Kermit's Lyrics: It’s so expensive being green, Follow the link to a video of the original.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:46 PM
| Comments (0)
March 26, 2009Back to the CavesA good friend of this blog sends a link to The New Yorker (and yes, the page has a cartoon in it). David Owen makes one of the more intelligent and compelling cases that energy consumption is required to advance human comfort and prosperity. Owen flatly states that "the world’s principal source of man-made greenhouse gases has always been prosperity." The recession makes that relationship easy to see: shuttered factories don’t spew carbon dioxide; the unemployed drive fewer miles and turn down their furnaces, air-conditioners, and swimming-pool heaters; struggling corporations and families cut back on air travel; even affluent people buy less throwaway junk. Where Owen diverges from your average right wing, DAWG-denyin', knuckle-draggin' whacko is that he thinks it is great. He only worries that efforts to revitalize the world economy might succeed -- and concomitantly raise carbon footprints. The environmental benefits of economic decline, though real, are fragile, because they are vulnerable to intervention by governments, which, understandably, want to put people back to work and get them buying non-necessities again—through programs intended to revive ordinary consumer spending (which has a big carbon footprint), and through public-investment projects to build new roads and airports (ditto). Our best intentions regarding conservation and carbon reduction inevitably run up against the realities of foreclosure and bankruptcy and unemployment. How do we persuade people to drive less—an environmental necessity—while also encouraging them to revive our staggering economy by buying new cars? Those bastards! My e-mailer suggests (so pointedly I wish had share permission) that these people have no plans to join us in the caves when we are driven back. They'll spin off a check for carbon offsets before they climb aboard he Gulfstream. But I do appreciate Owen's honesty.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:38 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
And where Owen diverges from your average tofu-munching, prosperity hating, disaster du jour statist is in having even the slightest concern for "putting people back to work." Kenneth Green, a self-proclaimed carbon taxer, writes in The American about the practical difficulties of reducing "greenhouse gas" emissions either through regulation or by a cap and trade plan. With such a huge swath of the economy's productivity based on energy production and consumption, the government will be creating a new financial instrument of massive proportion. Did the current economic turmoil not teach us the importance of deliberation in creating new kinds of poorly understood financial instruments?Posted by: johngalt at March 26, 2009 4:40 PM March 23, 2009Cut Down All The Damn Trees!CO2 is a threat to Public Health WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency has sent a proposal to the White House finding that carbon dioxide is danger to public health, in a step that could trigger the enforcement of stringent emissions rules under the Clean Air Act. The executive branch can control every aspect of the economy that uses energy. "Stroke of the pen, law of the land." It's back to the caves, friends -- game over.
Posted by John Kranz at 4:34 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
Where do I go for a permit to use PCBs to control dust on my driveways or DDT to kill the mosquitoes so prevalent in the Old Dry Creek corridor passing in and near my farm? If mammal breath is such a "hazard to human health" then how can emission of ANY of it be justified? Just shut the fracking gas/oil/coal plants DOWN. None of this pantywaist "right to pollute in a socially acceptable way" bullshit. I call this a win-win proposition: It would make environmentalists happy, because modern society would basically cease to exist. And it would make me happy because voters would then use their stone tablet ballots to vote each and every environmentalist maggot out of public office across the land. (Even if it's so they can watch American Idol again, I'll take it.) Posted by: johngalt at March 24, 2009 5:16 PMMarch 11, 2009DAWG Denyin'I wish to clarify my position on climate change. If you've heard it, skip to the link and enjoy John Fund's brutal takedown of VP Gore. If you're new 'round here, please accept my argument with the proponents: they do not use accepted scientific methods to evaluate their theories and resolve differences. One of my heroes is Dr. Karl Popper. His writings on philosophy and politics are superb, but he is best known for his scientific epistemology. Popper is - among many things -- the codifier of what we know as the scientific method. To be accepted by the scientific community, a theory must display predictive power. Most famously, Albert Einstein's Special and General Relativity both predicted complex phenomena that could not be verified by the instruments of their day. Yet, as atomic clocks, and rocket ships, and radio telescopes were invented, underpaid graduate students used those devices to test Einstein's assertions. So far, they have all come true, and Einstein's theories are well accepted. But it's worth noting that Einstein's theories are still not completely accepted and that a scientist who questions them is not shunned as "A Relativity Denier." He better have something to back up his claims, but his claims can be heard. Not so to one with the temerity to suggest that Global Warming is not Anthropogenic and Deleterious. Nope, then you're a denier. Segue to John Fund (which must be read in full). VP Gore will not debate Vaclav Klaus, who doubts the W; Bjorn Lomborg, who questions the D; or Dr. Willie Soon of Harvard who asks what VP Gore hopes to accomplish. At the Wall Street Journal's ECO:nomics conference in Santa Barbara, California, Mr. Gore was initially scheduled to appear with Czech President Vaclav Klaus, a noted skeptic on global warming. Mr. Gore changed his schedule so he could appear the previous day. President Klaus told me this week that the major reason he agreed to travel from Europe was the chance to interact with Mr. Gore. "I don't understand all of this reluctance to engage with others," he told me. Back to Popper, and real science: the heroes are the iconoclasts who buck "consensus" and say the Earth is not flat, the Sun does not revolve around the Earth, and a four pound stone does not fall four times as fast as a one pound stone. "Eppur Si Muove."
Posted by John Kranz at 12:52 PM
| Comments (2)
But nanobrewer thinks:
Glad to be a denier, and not just because you're one, JK. I'm a bit proud, even, to have converted my brother from being a proponent to a doubter. And, surely, don't any liberals read this:
But jk thinks:
No, they don't read that nb, "The Science is Settled&tm;" and they are on to saving the world, not reading every little meaningless fluctuation of data. Lastly, be careful with the deference -- nobody treats me that nicely around here. Posted by: jk at March 16, 2009 12:30 PMMarch 9, 2009Why politicized economic development is dangerousI recently wrote on the danger of politics driving scientific research. The obvious case of this now is all of the government "investments" being proposed in the name of "saving the planet from irreversible damage due to climate change." But even if man-made climate change was real (sorry tg, is real) and even if "renewable" energy sources were beneficial to counter it, the least effective entity to make them a reality is - wait for it - government. Consider the following essay on "One Reason Governments Spend So Much" from the 'Uncle Eric' book: Whatever Happened to Penny Candy? Industries generally develop in three stages. First is scientific feasibility, second is engineering feasibility, and third is economic feasibility. This economic development of the economically unfeasible is precisely the modern story of: Wind power
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:38 PM
| Comments (6)
But Keith thinks:
Just to add to the entertainment value: "But even if man-made climate change were real..." is the grammatically accurate construction. Heh. JohnGalt: great post, and the model of three-stage development makes plain, even to a poor, dumb country boy like me, why government-run economic development doesn't work. And to boot, it's much more elegant than me just saying "a government that can't even balance its own checkbook has no business fiddling with the economy." I'd only propose one small change to the quote rfrom the essay. Where the author wrote "Once science and engineering prove something can be done, those who comprise the government will do it - even if the costs are greater than the benefits" in the last paragraph, it seems to me that the last phrase should omit the word "even" and the hyphen, thusly: "... those who comprise the government will do it if the costs are greater than the benefits." If the benefits are greater than the costs, entrepreneurs and private industry will do it, without the necessity of government meddling. Profit motive being what it is, and all that. Ergo, government will ONLY do it if its benefits do not justify its costs, and that applies to every item in your list. QED, yes? Posted by: Keith at March 9, 2009 3:18 PM
But jk thinks:
Ahh, the punchline from a great old gag can be trotted out: I congratulate Keith on his use of the subjunctive.Posted by: jk at March 9, 2009 4:32 PM
But Keith thinks:
Thanks, jk... Say, on the subject of government and the economy, I've been reading in the news today that Warren Buffett has been quoted as saying the U.S. economy "fell off a cliff." I've read that three times today, and every time, all that comes to mind is... "It was pushed." Posted by: Keith at March 9, 2009 5:11 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Wellll, I was trying to have some fun with TG, saying "was" as in "past tense" ... before it was largely discredited, then replacing it with "is" as a sop to him since he's not yet comfortable with the "denier" badge of courage. I admit - sometimes my jokes trip over their shoelaces. Oh, and yes, I do fully agree with your improvement of the closing paragraph. Well done! Posted by: johngalt at March 10, 2009 12:25 AM
But jk thinks:
Tough room, jg, you know that as well as anyone. Posted by: jk at March 10, 2009 1:34 PM
But T. Greer thinks:
Eh, I though the post was funny. I also think you have highlighted one of the biggest problems with the Eco-stimulus crowd. What they call progress is in actuality a retardation (word?) of Western civilization. Posted by: T. Greer at March 11, 2009 12:19 PMMarch 7, 2009Politicization of Science DeuxA bit of comment persiflage last week about how DAWG has become a left-vs-right issue. Randall Parker lays out the problem and even a few solutions: Why has the debate over global warming become so partisan with most on the Left and Right taking opposing positions? Some on the Left argue that people on the political Left are more willing to consider the evidence of science. But I see a more likely reason: People on the Right do not like high taxes and suspect the argument for restrictions on carbon dixoide emissions is just a convenient opportunity to increase tax revenues and the size of government. The Obama Administration demonstrates the truth of these suspicions. A half trillion dollars a year is a lot of money. I'll let you click though to see the solutions, but it is basically Mankiw's point of making carbon taxes neutral. I've made my voice heard enough on that, but compared to a huge revenue windfall for government, I'd like it just fine. Hat-Tip: Instapundit
Posted by John Kranz at 12:07 PM
| Comments (0)
March 6, 2009Why Politicized Science is DangerousYesterday I commented that there's "another important dragon to be slain before" the next elections for congress and for president. That dragon is the myth of man-made global warming caused by our use of economical, safe and abundant energy sources. Many of us have long contended that the idea is founded upon pseudo-science. The late Michael Crighton agreed and in an appendix to his wonderfully entertaining and thought provoking novel 'State of Fear' he wrote "Why politicized science is dangerous." Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out. Read on below-
Posted by JohnGalt at 12:10 PM
| Comments (6)
But jk thinks:
Careful, jg, TR has some strong followers around here. Sure he wanted to control capitalism from Washington, lock up his enemies and kill the enfeebled, but he displayed prodigious intellectual powers, looked good in casual clothes, and said "bully!" a lot. Posted by: jk at March 6, 2009 2:36 PM
But johngalt thinks:
One of Crighton's points is how, after the horrors perpetrated in the name of the theory became widely known, "nobody was a eugenicist and nobody had ever been a eugenicist." You'll recall I suggested not long ago that we start a permanent record of Global Warmists today, for the historical record. My favorite thing about TR was "speak softly, and carry a big stick." Posted by: johngalt at March 6, 2009 3:47 PM
But T. Greer thinks:
@Jg: I read that book and thought it sucked. (Tidal waves=result of climate change?) On the other hand, I thought the appendix you link to was quite insightful. It is rather sad to me that one's views on AGW are determined by your political affiliation. These days it seems that if you believe in "protecting the environment" then AGW is a self-evident fact not worth examining, while if you are of the free-market crowd, there is no way the climate could ever be linked to man's activities on the Earth. This is a false dichotomy. It is perfectly acceptable to hold that warming may be influenced bu man and that free markets should not be interfered with for the environment's sake. Indeed, this is the exact position I hold.
But T. Greer thinks:
@Jk: Hahahha. Enough already! I think we have covered this before- Roosevelt's views on eugenics never led to anything more than a desire to make immigration laws stricter. Vilifying him for politicizing science makes no sense. Everything else you have listed is irrelevant to the subject of this post and has been discussed already. Posted by: T. Greer at March 6, 2009 5:32 PM
But jk thinks:
Okay, I'll leave TR alone. I enjoyed the Lomborg clip. He inspired the D in DAWG and I think his position is reasonable and defensible. I hold that the debate was politicized by the left: those who Popper said would have us go back to the caves. Suddenly, the inefficacy of their ideas was meaningless: we had to take on the whole Nader-Kucinich platform or all of our children will die! The DAWG advocates then claimed that "the science was settled" because a poll was taken. Popper, again, pointed out that science is not really done that way. Yes, it is too bad that something important has devolved into childish bickering -- but, Mommy, they started it!! Posted by: jk at March 6, 2009 7:04 PM
But johngalt thinks:
But it isn't called global warming anymore tg, it's "climate change." That way the charade can be continued whether the trend is warmer or cooler. Which is fortunate for them since now, it's cooling. The market interference you allude to is the setting of arbitrary limits on emission of mammal breath. "First they came for the dioxins, then the beneficial pesticides, then the fluorocarbons, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur compounds, and when they came for carbon dioxide there were no pollutants left to say - you can't regulate non-pollutants!" Posted by: johngalt at March 7, 2009 8:11 PMFebruary 27, 2009Cap'n TradeMaybe they need a salty-dog cartoon character to promote Cap'n Trade. After all I ate many boxes of truly disgusting cereal as a kid to get the toy surprise that Cap'n Crunch promised me. It could work. So far, they are not fooling the WSJ Ed Page. "Don't call it a t--" is the subtitle of An Inconvenient Tax That didn't take long. The same week that President Obama promised (again) that "95% of working families" would not see their taxes rise by "a single dime," his own budget reveals that taxes will rise for 100% of everyone for the sake of global warming. Ahem. I'll credit the administration one thing. It is worse than a tax because it has such a strong regulatory component. Cue Cap'n Trade: "It's a tax" "No, it's regulation," replies the Power-Vampire Count Wastefula... It'd be cute.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:17 PM
| Comments (0)
February 2, 2009VP Gore visiting the UK?Some London Facebook friends were talking about snowballs, and I get this weather report from Samizdat Jonathan Pearce: It is on days like these that I am glad that I work for a web-based business and that I work from home for part of the day anyway. Judging by how severe weather has hit the UK overnight, rendering the UK public transport network immobile, that is just as well. The London Underground - with the exception of the Victoria line - is down. Buses and other transport like trains are severely affected.
Posted by John Kranz at 6:02 PM
| Comments (0)
January 26, 2009Mild January in PhillyBlog Brother AlexC finds some interesting weather news for his area: The average or medium temperature of this month was 44 degrees This is the mildest month of January on record. Fogs prevailed very much in the morning but a hot sun soon dispersed them and the mercury often ran up to 70 in the shade at mid day. Boys were often seen swimming in the Delaware and Schuylkill rivers. That's January 1790. Computed from detailed records kept by Charles Pierce. From Charles Pierce's records, the average January temperature in Philadelphia from 1790-1819 was 31.2F. According to USHCN records from 2000-2006 (the last year available from USHCN) and Weather Underground records from 2007-2009, the average January temperature in Philadelphia for the last ten years has been 29.8 degrees, or 1.4 degrees cooler than the period 1790-1819. January, 2009 has been colder than any January during the presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, or Monroe. January 2003 and 2004 were both considerably colder than any January during the terms of the first five presidents of the US. In other local weather news, our Minnesota contingent will be pleased to hear that it was unpleasantly cold in Erie, CO for today's dog walk and it should dip below zero tonight.
Posted by John Kranz at 1:32 PM
| Comments (1)
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
In my neck of the woods (upper Westchester, New York), we've had only seven days this month whose high exceeded freezing. I can't remember it ever being this cold. At this rate I need to wear thermal underwear beneath my suit pants. Al Gore, go screw yourself. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 26, 2009 3:35 PMJanuary 25, 2009Saving the World Through World GovernmentI had a very fun IM conversation with a good friend and former employee of mine in Ireland last week. He can be counted on to take the stock, European, BBC view on things. He is well informed in that he watches documentaries instead of "Dancing with the Stars" but, like an American NPR or PBS devotee, he gets inculcated in a single view. He knows I supported President Bush. In fact I was quite the celebrity in my day. Britons and Irish were assured that all of Bush's supporters were buckteethed, Southern evangelicals who were married to their sisters. I had many enjoyable pub yells where respectful folks were truly amazed to hear any argument for President Bush that wasn't "Jesus told me to vote for him." Anyways, after casual hellos, my friend asked what I thought of our new President. I gave him the "cautiously optimistic but concerned" line you've heard from me around here. He concedes that President Obama is "just a politician" who won't change much, but he is on board for all the promises. "What would you like to see him change?" asks me. First was to sign Kyoto, second was some amorphous "fix foreign policy" and third was to close Gitmo. This guy is a devout Muslim and has a PhD. He saw some documentary that the residents of Trinidad and Tobago are all relocating off the islands because of global warming. He says parts of Ireland are submerged and that large numbers of people have already lost their homes to climate change. Perhaps a few episodes of "Dancing with the Stars" would be better for my friend. He firmly believes that the residents of Caribbean islands are losing their homes so that Americans can drive SUVs. And nobody cares because the unfortunate are not white and the fortunate are. I disputed every element of his story and said if did believe it, that the Kyoto treaty would be worthless in stopping it. I said that the US had lowered CO2 emissions through technology and efficiency and complained that most signatories had not been able to meet their modest goals. He disputed that but finally conceded that it was all irrelevant because of India and China. It's Sunday, there's no football, so I provided that long personal intro. This post is actually about Kyoto. Like VP Gore who flies in private jets and rides in limousines and lives in a mansion, the good people of Germany have coal plants to produce their electricity. And like the VP, they buy indulgences -- er "carbon credits" -- to compensate. The Germans "buy" a hydroelectric dam in China. What does the good, grün, Deutscher Mann get for his Euros? Displaced families, dubious environmental controls and no real reduction of emissions: But in the end the new Xiaoxi dam may do nothing to lower global-warming emissions as advertised. And many of the 7,500 people displaced by the project still seethe over losing their homes and farmland. My friend -- again a nice guy and very bright -- just can't wait for America to sign up for this global boondoggle.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:33 AM
| Comments (2)
But T. Greer thinks:
Does anybody else think that carbon-trading schemes are not unlike the indulgences of the Middle Ages? If we take the environmentalists on their word, and assume that emitting CO2 is evil and reckless, simply paying others to remove their CO2 emissions seems a rather amoral thing to do, methinks. Never mind that it is the entire basis for the failed 20% EU emissions cut scheme- environmentalism has to look like it is succeeding somewhere! ~T. Greer, no fan of carbon caps.
But jk thinks:
Completely unfair, tg. Some of the indulgences were put to good use, buying gold and finery for the Church. I cannot believe you would denigrate the good name of indulgences for cheap political gain. Posted by: jk at January 25, 2009 6:15 PMJanuary 15, 2009Hyde Park Weather ReportI heartily recommend the Facebook group "Not Evil Just Wrong." A new documentary from the makers of "Mine Your Own Business." Ann McElhinney posts a link to Chicago Weather and sez: "Nation Freezes as Global Warming President Prepares For Office" A new record was set Wednesday when Chicago had its ninth consecutive day of measurable snowfall, according to the National Weather Service. Of course, this is not proof of DAWG-fraud. But, were it unseasonably warm, I'm sure we'd be hearing about it. UPDATE: David Harsanyi confers: The carbon footprint of Barack Obama's inauguration could exceed 575 million pounds of CO2. According to the Institute for Liberty, it would take the average U.S. household nearly 60,000 years of naughty ecological behavior to produce a carbon footprint equal to the largest self-congratulatory event in the history of humankind.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:55 AM
| Comments (8)
But Keith thinks:
2:35 Pacific here, and it's 83 degrees outside in Pasadena, CA. It's supposed to be January outside. As in winter. Come on by and join me for margaritas. Or, failing that, someone ship Al Gore out here to make a speech and lower the temperature. Posted by: Keith at January 15, 2009 5:39 PM
But johngalt thinks:
It is, in fact, January at Atlantis Farm. Sunny and clear, we've made it up to the mid-forties today (45.6F as I type this, evidenced by the weather banner in the side bar). While winter in Colorado typically means pack up the garden hoses for the season, I actually watered the sand footing in our indoor arena today. Hey Greer - imagine what an impulse sprinkler would look like if it were operating in your yard today! And yes Keith, I was drinking margaritas the last two evenings. (OK, only because I was out of beer.) To be fair, we did our time in Al Gore's "warming" barrel last month when the overnight low hit 22 below on the morning of the 15th. Posted by: johngalt at January 15, 2009 5:59 PM
But T. Greer thinks:
Will you guys stop it? Please? Do you really need to rub it in? ~T. Greer, jealous. Posted by: T. Greer at January 15, 2009 7:50 PM
But Keith thinks:
I will stop, but nonetheless, my offer of libation stands; and if I could teleport you thirty Fahrenheit degrees, I would. Posted by: Keith at January 16, 2009 1:35 AM
But jk thinks:
I was gonna be nice, but since you guys have started -- I just took my beloved dog, Skylark, for a walk. I wore a golf shirt, no coat, no hat, no gloves. You should take Keith up on his offer of 30, tg. Then it'd be a balmy -17; you could play a round of golf or something. Posted by: jk at January 16, 2009 11:29 AM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
I just now realized why it's so cold. Obama got elected, and hell is freezing over. It's finally spreading to us. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at January 16, 2009 11:50 AMJanuary 4, 2009HuffPo DAWG DenyerYou can't believe everything you read from the partisan hacks at Huffington Post. In their mad dash to discredit President Bush and accelerate the acceptance of collectivism, they'll say just about... Oh. Wait a minute. Harold Ambler claims that a certain ex-VPOTUS owes us an apology; Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that "the science is in." Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind [emphasis in original]. Ambler, who has a book coming out "Apology Accepted," presents -- to the Huffington faithful -- a serious and comprehensive refutation of the conventional wisdom on climate change. Brother AC is right: this might be a very good year after all. UPDATE Link fixed, should've hat-tipped Insty
Posted by John Kranz at 12:20 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
And yet, when I suggested that every American politician be put on record as a champion or a "denier" of "the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind" I was called over confident. (I look forward to reading the linked Ambler post - shortly after the broken link is fixed.) And yet I must still quibble with this characterization of the Global Warming swindle: A bigger whopper is that Social Security will forever provide a dependable retirement "safety net" for every American. Posted by: johngalt at January 4, 2009 1:03 PMDecember 26, 2008Top Ten Failed Climate PredictionsFrom the (Australia) Herald Sun: GLOBAL warming preachers have had a shocking 2008. So many of their predictions this year went splat. Linked from a James Lewis post in Pajamas Media that makes my favorite comparison. Lewis describes a heated exchange between Czech President Vaclav Klaus and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, whom he describes as a "former anarchist street fighter during the infamous ‘68 riots — who is now a big Green honcho in European politics. Said Danny the Red to Vaclav Klaus: 'You can believe what you want, I don’t believe, I know that global warming is a reality.'" And there you have it, folks, the voice of skeptical reason assaulted by militant dogma, ready to burn as many witches as may be needed to defend the One True Faith. If this sounds familiar, just think of Galileo and Pope Innocent III, who did not want to peer through Galileo’s telescope at the night sky, having a rock-hard faith that made evidence unnecessary. Danny the Red, shake hands with the Renaissance Pope. Two peas in pod. But it does not matter whether their science collapses -- they've won the election.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:05 PM
| Comments (3)
But johngalt thinks:
They've won THIS election. It's now time to establish an Official DAWG Record for every American politician: Where do they stand now, as the evidence continues to mount that the whole thing was at best a monumental misjudgement or, possibly even an epic swindle. Those who still insist that "global warming is a reality" may well have exposure on legal fraud charges. At the least, they should never again receive serious consideration for elective office. Posted by: johngalt at December 28, 2008 8:15 PM
But jk thinks:
Wow. You're a lot more confident than me. I'd love to celebrate swift retribution and look forward to the televised trials. But, ahem, we're still considered the kooks, not they. Popperian epistemology has not been employed to engender skepticism, but it will be employed to keep this theory afloat. We will never be able to disprove DAWG. I expect it will hang around, like recycling plastic milk bottles, long after it is shown not to have merit.
But jk thinks:
Even less sanguine after reading this list of scientific illiteracy among the bright and beautiful. Demi Moore recommends "highly trained medical leeches" to detoxify your body. What was that about bad ideas sticking around? Posted by: jk at December 29, 2008 1:31 PMDecember 9, 2008EcoflationDon Luskin links to this Reuters story, saying "Here's a new crisis for you, Paul." I'm trying to keep my humor as well, but this is a real article from a "real" wire service. I'll give you a taste, but you should swallow a couple TUMS® and read the whole, nightmarish thing: WASHINGTON, Dec 8 (Reuters) - Add another economic worry to inflation and deflation: ecoflation, the rising cost of doing business in a world with a changing climate.
Posted by John Kranz at 1:43 PM
| Comments (3)
But T. Greer thinks:
This does not make a whit of economic sense. Consider this paragraph: "Companies that make fast-moving consumer goods, everything from cereal to shampoo, could see earnings drop by 13 percent to 31 percent by 2013 and 19 percent to 47 percent by 2018 if they do not adopt sustainable environmental practices, the report said." This simply does not work. Lets go ahead and assume that a changing climate will create an uptick in storms, damage ports, and generally hurt international infrastructure. Sustainable environmental practices will not stop that. According to the IPCC Working Group 1, we could cut the electricity to every factory and power plant, ground every boat abd plane, and kill every methane-releasing mammal on the planet and still have all of those same problems. Cutting emissions does not have an affect on global tempurature until at least 2045- by which time all these businesses will have failed due to the horrible problems of global warming anyway, right? ~T. Greer, incentive seeker Posted by: T. Greer at December 9, 2008 5:26 PM
But jk thinks:
What you say has some verisimilitude, tg, but this is a scientific paper and a Reuters story. Therefore, I am going to demand a salary increase effective immediately, to counteract the ravages of ecoflation. Posted by: jk at December 9, 2008 5:37 PM
But johngalt thinks:
That wasn't the definition of "ecoflation" I expected to read. I do believe the phenomenon is real but it is actually a situation where costs for real goods and services rise due to taxes and regulations intended to "protect" the ecology of the earth, the latter being a mostly "virtual" reality. Of course, I really shouldn't have expected to read this "real" definition on a "real" news wire, since "everyone knows" that global warming "science" is "settled." (I'm on page 313 of Chrichton's 'State of Fear.' Great story!) Posted by: johngalt at December 9, 2008 7:46 PMNovember 23, 2008Congressional HearingsFrank Beckmann suggests that the auto execs should have asked Congress some questions: Why did members of Congress -- such as House Banking Chairman Barney Frank, Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd and others -- raise fuel economy standards, adding more than $85 billion in costs as the industry was restructuring itself? Good questions. HT: Insty
Posted by John Kranz at 11:11 AM
| Comments (4)
But johngalt thinks:
Beckmann continues: "We wouldn't expect the lawmakers to apologize for their lengthy list of mistakes. We wouldn't expect them to admit their role in creating the trouble. They never do." They never HAVE because the lame-stream media haven't held them to account. Now that "change" has come to the White House might there be "hope" for a different approach in news coverage? Since they can't beat up on the executive branch any more, and since the judicial branch makes news far too infrequently to fuel the 24/7 news business, the lever pullers in the legislative branch may be in for some close scrutiny. It is long overdue. Posted by: johngalt at November 23, 2008 3:20 PM
But jk thinks:
I'm less hopeful. Most of the media deeply believe that government should be legislating fuel economy standards and "breaking our addiction to oil." Even with extra time on their hands, I don't see their pushing government failures and inefficiencies. Posted by: jk at November 23, 2008 3:40 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Lest anyone believe I've become pollyanish I'll call attention to the terms "might" "hope" and "may" in my original comment. Whether the close scrutiny actually materializes or not, it IS long overdue. Posted by: johngalt at November 23, 2008 7:28 PM
But Keith thinks:
Close scrutiny will never happen. I'm of a mind to say that Congress' actions are perfectly consistent - that is, with the basic operating principle of Congress: "We Congressmen need for America to need us. If they don't need us, we won't get re-elected." Ergo, if there isn't a present crisis in which they can intervene so the voters will see how essential Congress is, they will invent one (climate change) or worse, cause one (sub-prime mortgages). After all, if Congress announced tomorrow "you know, our meddling in the free market and other things about which we actually know nothing about isn't helping. We're going to trust market forces to balance themselves without our help, and take the next two weeks off," pretty soon the voters (the well-informed and intelligent ones, I mean) might wake up and realize how unneeded they really are. We might eventually wind up with limited government and a part-time Congress. Part of the problem is that we have an electorate which would rather have a government that fiddles with the levers, instead of a goverment that is willing to trust the free market to correct itself. We want them to "Do Something!" and we have 435 amateurs who know nothing about how the system works but feels the need to "Do Something!" becaused they're terrified of being seen by the voters as doing nothing. Couple that with a legacy media that, like Congress, has to have a constant flow of disasters to justify its existence - and if you don't believe that, imagine your local talking head on I'm-Witless News tonight saying "Congress today met for twelve minutes and realized everything will fix itself without their help. It's 6:04, but since there's no other news for us to report, we're going to fill the rest of the hour with a re-run of 'Bewitched,' and we'll be back at 6:50 to tell you about sports, weather, and what Madonna wore to her divorce hearing." Imagine your local newpaper having to move the grocery coupons to the front section in order to justify the paper and ink. Did anyone notice how "24" last night was a two-hour public service announcement about the ills of child soldiers? Let's be honest, civilized nations don't use child soldiers - tin-horn dictators, rogue leaders, rebels and terrorists do, and they don't feel a need to respect outside strictures on their behavior. Nonetheless, I fully expect Congress to hold hearings and enact some meaningless laws on the subject. Now that we're wising up to climate change, they're going to need a new crisis about which they can sound important and effectual. I'll bet a nickel none of you gave much thought to the subject of child soldiers in the last two months. Soon, people will need to decide what color ribbon to wear in order to Raise Awareness about it. What, cynical? Me? Posted by: Keith at November 24, 2008 12:13 PMNovember 21, 2008DAWG-Denyin' Links of the DayI may have a new favorite Senator. The Inhofe EFW Blog reports: ‘Planet Has Cooled Since Bush Took Office’ – Scientists Continue Dissenting – Gore Admits 'I've failed badly' - Global Sea Ice GROWS! That's just the headline. Hat-tip: Instapundit
Posted by John Kranz at 3:14 PM
| Comments (4)
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
Even if I grew to like him, he'd be my ONLY favorite Senator. Similarly, I have a "favorite" in the House, and he's the only one in there who I like. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 21, 2008 3:49 PM
But Keith thinks:
Whichever state any of you are from, I'll trade you mine for Inhofe. In fact, I'm having a two-for-one sale: you can have both of mine for just one. Call within the next ten minutes, and I'll throw in free shipping and handling, and you can have San Fran Nan in the House as well. Operators are standing by. Posted by: Keith at November 21, 2008 5:22 PM
But jk thinks:
Ha. You'd have to throw in a few ShamWows, Keith. Though my illustrious awful backbencher Congressman (Rep Mark Udall) will be my Senator in a few weeks, so I won't talk. (Salazar may be the least worst Democrat -- point of pride?) I like Jon Kyl from Arizona, and I will always hold Leader McConnell in high esteem for McConnell v FEC and opposition to a flag burning amendment.
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
Keith, I live in New York, so mine rival yours. Not only is Hillary my junior senator, but her official residence of Chappaqua is a neighboring village. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 23, 2008 6:13 PMNovember 20, 2008Putting the 'Al' in "Causality'Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monsters: You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.
The science is settled. Hat-tip: Samizdata, where Samizdat Michael Jennings points out "the clear increase in the number of pirates indicates that global warming is receding as a problem. This is good to see."
Posted by John Kranz at 4:42 PM
| Comments (2)
But Keith thinks:
Do these figures include privateers? And if so, could the case be made that privateering was an early attempt by government to control global warming through the use of state-sponsored restocking of the pirate population? My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of possibilities that the recent spate of Somali piracy is actually orchestrated by Al Gore to combat rising temperatures. Is this a part of the Kyoto protocols? Posted by: Keith at November 20, 2008 7:09 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:
I dunno, but somebody had better go back and get a sh*t-load of dimes. Posted by: Boulder Refugee at November 20, 2008 7:34 PMSilver Linings...And you guys thought this global depression thingy was going to be bad.
Posted by John Kranz at 2:02 PM
| Comments (6)
But Keith thinks:
Climate change is fading as a priority in the Pacific Rim as the gloomy state of the global economy takes precedence, a survey of opinion leaders showed Wednesday. And you guys thought this global depression thingy was going to be bad.
So, the governator holds this conference, at which Obama shares a taped message promising to "engage vigorously in these negotiations and help lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change" and further wreck America's economy, just as the world is losing interest in the issue of climate change and turning their attention to the economy. Brilliant! I wonder how much jet fuel was burned to ferry the 800-or-so attendees to the conference. And Schwarzenegger promises to spend - er, invest - more taxpayer money that California's economy doesn't have to combat global warmer (or cooling, or whatever the manufactured flavor of the week it), while California's unionized teachers and a bevy of elected officials go hysterical that we're not pouring enough money into the bottomless black hole of our useless public education system. We're trading a phony crisis invented by liberals (anthropogenic climate change) for a real crisis manufactured by liberals (the tanking economy), and the liberals swear they're the only ones that can fix it. The inmates are running the asylum... Posted by: Keith at November 20, 2008 2:59 PM
But Keith thinks:
By the way, forgive the typos, such as "warmer" for "warming," "it" for "is," and the like. I'm caffeine-challenged today. And thank you for the reciprocal blogroll posting! Y'all are awesome - Posted by: Keith at November 20, 2008 3:05 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Keith! I love your comments! And coming from a Pastor? This is almost enough to get me believing in God again! Ah, well... I'm sure we'll cross swords on a morality issue now and then. Posted by: johngalt at November 20, 2008 10:15 PM
But Keith thinks:
johngalt: even Robin Hood and his Merry Men had Friar Tuck in their company, and Shepherd Book had his place on Serenity. Besides, where else are you going to find a pastor who thinks Objectivism is well-suited to Christianity... well, except for that inconvenient atheism thing? I'm a huge fan of that namesake of yours, and Atlas Shrugged should be required reading for anyone holding public office. Crossing swords? "As iron sharpens iron, so does one man sharpen another." You and I will certainly keep each other sharp... Posted by: Keith at November 21, 2008 2:39 AM
But jk thinks:
And a "Firefly" reference? Welcome home. Posted by: jk at November 21, 2008 11:00 AM
But johngalt thinks:
Yes, that was my point exactly: A pastor who cites Rand. Quite a rare gem indeed. Welcome! By all means, welcome. I look forward to our discussions about why gay marriage should never be condoned by the state - and why abortion should never be banned by it. Now, as a reader of Atlas Shrugged you should know better than to cite Robin Hood as a symbol of virtue! Mal Reynolds, yes. Posted by: johngalt at November 21, 2008 11:03 AMNovember 19, 2008Not Evil Just WrongI hyped Phelim McAleer's Documentary Mine Your Own Business to an almost annoying level last year. McAleer uses the documentary format to show Bastiat's "unseen:" the jobs and development that do not happen in developing nations when mining projects are stopped by environmentalists. I get email today of a new one from McAleer and Ann McElhinney: We have very good news about our latest film Not Evil Just Wrong. The documentary has been selected to premiere at the Amsterdam International Documentary Film Festival, the largest and most prestigious documentary film festival in the world. The world premiere will be on Friday 21st November at 10.30 am. It would be amazing if you could come and join with us in celebrating the launch of the film and hopefully the beginning of a real debate about Global Warming. Not Evil Just Wrong features a very evil looking photo of VP Al Gore and seeks to discuss "The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria."
Posted by John Kranz at 11:38 AM
| Comments (0)
November 7, 2008RIP Quote of the DayLet's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Posted by John Kranz at 2:28 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
Great post JK, though a better title would be your well known, "Giants have walked the earth." Crichton's closing paragraph has a familiar ring: "Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?" This is reminiscent of dagny's plea, not on these pages but in an email to my liberal friends, "WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH SOME OF YOU PEOPLE?" There was another place, in another time, when thoughtful people wondered how a population could be so misled. An excellent analysis of how it happened, and may well happen again, can be read in Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels. Posted by: johngalt at November 8, 2008 11:48 AMOctober 21, 2008Last Word on Global WarmingThere's some question about the accuracy of some anti-DAWG information posted by blog brother jg. I have not looked enough to wade in, but got this in my email as soon as I saw tg's comment. I think we can all agree that PBS's Frontline will provide a fair and balanced look at climate change: Heat A great lefty friend of mine recently emailed to tell me that he had looked at both sides of the election by watching a Frontline special and reading one of Senator Obama's autobiographies, and has decided to vote for Senator Obama (without even waiting for The Nation endorsement). I'll quit my job to campaign full time for the first candidate who runs on a platform to abolish PBS.
Posted by John Kranz at 5:51 PM
| Comments (3)
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
What if abolishing PBS is only part of my 2012 platform? :) Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 21, 2008 10:12 PM
But jk thinks:
If selected as your running mate, Perry, you'll be guaranteed my complete support. Posted by: jk at October 22, 2008 11:22 AM
But johngalt thinks:
QUIT your job - I can trump that: I was just laid off from my job. The plus side is I now have more time to campaign for McPalin. (If not for that tiny little problem of the mortgage.) Posted by: johngalt at October 22, 2008 8:12 PMMeanwhile, back on the warming globe...
Judging from this graph of "Lower Troposphere Global Temperature: 1979-2008" it'll soon be much harder to propogate that "proven" "gasoline [and the industrial economy] is destroying the Earth, and humanity along with it" narrative. (Story here.) Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, says, "It's practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling," as the sun enters a particularly inactive phase. His examination of warming and cooling trends over the past four centuries shows an "almost exact correlation" between climate fluctuations and solar energy received on Earth, while showing almost "no correlation at all with CO2." And there's this for those who believe the world's best science comes from the IPCC: But in order to prove the climate scaremongers' claim that 20th-century warming had been dangerous and unprecedented -- a result of human, not natural factors -- the MWP [medieval warm period] had to be made to disappear. So studies such as Michael Mann's "hockey stick," in which there is no MWP and global temperatures rise gradually until they jump up in the industrial age, have been adopted by the UN as proof that recent climate change necessitates a reordering of human economies and societies. So let go of my wallet. I've gotta go buy a new "snow machine" suit. Hat tip: Real Clear Politics
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:45 AM
| Comments (4)
But jk thinks:
Y'know, it's finally starting to look like a hockey stick. But it matters not. "The science is settled," we're now dividing up the pie. Posted by: jk at October 21, 2008 10:58 AM
But T. Greer thinks:
Eh, I think I am going to have to take the dissenting view here. That article is a piece of journalistic garbage. Now, don't take me wrong- I am not an environmentalist or anything of the sort. However, I think this article plays with the facts a little too much for my liking. Lets start with the first half of Gunter's claim. Gunter states that the number of skeptics has been going up because global temperature has been going down. Yet not once does Gunter provide evidence that the number of skeptics have increased. While I am sure a quick Google search could bring up such evidence (and I am sure it wouldn't be hard to find the opposite as well), Gunter doesn't provide anything to back up his claim- a mark of journalistic integrity, I am sure. The second half of his claim -and the bulk of the article - states that the world is cooling. Again, we find that Gunter's is lacking in credible evidence. Gunter cites several scientists in order to form a counter-consensus to the established IPCC view. However, he never gives us a reason why we should trust the six scientists cited in the article over those who claim that climate change is anthropogenic other than the simple fact that the UN likes the latter group quite a bit more. The individual statistics and scientific claims cited by Gunter also have their own problems. The commentary surrounding the MWP is a good example of this- no scientist in his right mind ever pretended that the MWP didn't happen. Rather, it is readily recognized that the MWP existed, and that it was a regional uptick in temperatures that affected only the North Atlantic. Pretending that the majority of climate scientists are ignoring the MWP is simply dissentious. (There is also no small amount of evidence pointing towards the conclusion that Europe is hotter now than it was during the MWP.) The bit about the solar spots also seems off. While it is usually the feature of the climate skeptic to decry falling for science dogma, Gunter doesn't seem to have this problem when talking about sunspots. But even if we assume that the scientists can tell what the sunspot activity was a thousand years ago despite the fact that we have only been recording sunspot activity since the 1700's, we find another problem: correlation is not causation. Again, we have one scientist's word that sunspots cause temperature rises... and nothing else. And finally, we get to the graph. Now I like Joh Kristy, and I think he has more than a couple of good points when it comes to the policy side of things. However, I will once again point out that he has one study, conducted by him (long after he made his mind up on the subject), on his side, and the other side has quite a few more graphs on theirs. Furthermore, that graph is crap. The "global trend line" doesn't make any sense at all. If it were a two/four/five year average line, we would see a consistent raise in temperature. If it was a least-squares regression line, it would also end quite a bit higher up. Heck, if the graph cut off at 2006 instead of 2008, the hockey stick would be pointing straight up! In conclusion, Mr. Gunter cherry-picks his facts and scientists in order prove a political point. That is bad, even if the point is being made for our side. ~T. Greer
But johngalt thinks:
Again, in a scientific climate where what the science "proves" depends highly upon the personal beliefs of the scientist, it is a necessity to "cherry pick" scientists and their "facts." And no, the graph isn't "crap" it's just still evolving. The cooling trend of 2 years (until 2006 the trend line was level or slightly upwards) is only a beginning when compared to the random warming trend over the preceding 20 years. But it is clearly distinctive enough to conclude a likely cooling period. Posted by: johngalt at October 22, 2008 8:06 PM
But T. Greer thinks:
JG, I dunno if I can support your position. Facts are facts. It is WRONG to require a scientist to pass your political test in order for their research to be valid. After all, isn't that that the environmentalists job? Is it not hypocrisy to fault them for attacking scientists on ideological grounds when we do the exact same thing? As for the graph: Look, if you were to cut the graph off in the middle of 1992, your graph would display two years of decreasing temperatures not unlike the two years of decreasing temperatures seen at the end of this one. However, one only needs to look at the skyrocketing temperature of the next few years to realize that anybody who concluded a likely cooling period back in '92 was dead wrong. The fact of the matter is, NO 2 year trend, be it hot or cold, is large enough to predict how the next five, ten, or thirty years are going to be. (To see how much a graph's appearance can change, particularly when the graph-makers use bogus terms like "global trend line," I suggest you look at the graph cut off in 2006: (http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m143/Tgreernm/fake_christy1.jpg)) Furthermore, the graph shows a clear warming trend when more accurate statistic tool to display the data. For example, when I estimated* the 2-year average of all the data points and created a regression line (http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m143/Tgreernm/fake_christy2.jpg), it is easy to see the raise in temperature. Granted, the raise in temperature in this graph is much lower than in the GISS graphs most scientists are using, but a consistent warming can still be found in Christy's data. ~T. Greer, hoping the spam blocker will let my link filled post get through.
NOTE: I drew in the regression line on this graph. If you want to see the study itself, here is the link: (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf) October 7, 2008First freeze...... at Atlantis Farm. This morning, from 0540 to 0750, the air temperature at Atlantis Farm north of Denver was at or below 32 F. Since we're outside of Denver's Urban Heat Island, our temperature is always lower than it is downtown. (If more universities were located far from urban areas the Global Warming theories wouldn't have a chance!)
Posted by JohnGalt at 4:40 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
During which time, I was five miles away, with very little urban island heat, walking Skylark. I was wearing shorts and a golf shirt and even though I like the cool weather, I was pretty anxious to get home. Posted by: jk at October 7, 2008 5:24 PMAugust 27, 2008SanguininityBrother Johngalt and I had mournfully decided that skeptical opposition to DAWG was a lost cause. Both Presidential candidates and a huge majority in Congress either subscribe to the theory or feel they have to play along to mollify their constituents. It seemed sad that we lost the battle as the science was crumbling. If I were a lefty, I'd call it ironic. C'est le guerre (le guerre, la Guerra, al gore there's a joke in there somewhere). Samizdat Brian Micklethwait not only sees the battle as won, he thinks the battle itself signals capitulation in a larger war: One of the things that irritates me about propagandists on my side is that they are often reluctant to spot a great victory, even when they have just won one. Wilkinson's point is not just that climate chaos-ism is nonsense, a claim that I increasingly find myself agreeing with completely, not least because the now undependable notion of "global warming" has been replaced by the idiotic phrase "climate chaos", or, even more idiotically, "climate change". When was there ever a time when the climate did not change? What Wilkinson is also noting is that the hysteria whipped up around the changeability of the climate was whipped up because these lunatics came to realise that they had no other arguments against a more-or-less capitalist, more-or-less-free-market world economy. They have now conceded - not in so many words, rather by changing the subject - that capitalism works, and the only nasty thing they have left to say about it is that it works so well that it ruins the planet. Perhaps he's right, but the enemies of free markets don't admit defeat very easily. Last night on Kudlow & Co., Secretary Robert Reich suggested that Kudlow and Stephen Moore were "the last two people on Earth who still believe in supply-side economics." I don't see anybody being more generous with climate science.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:59 PM
| Comments (2)
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
Similar to my comment one minute ago, Reich has *always* been a fool, without fail. The incredible (and I use that in the original sense of "unbelievable") thing about liberal economists is how they completely deny facts, particularly history. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 28, 2008 9:22 AM
But jk thinks:
I find Mister Secretary to be pretty tiring. Jonah Goldberg really beat him up in his book as a dishonest interlocutor in the past and I see it on his Kudlow appearances. He filibusters, distorts, and presents the view of the UC Berkeley faculty lounge as gospel. Posted by: jk at August 28, 2008 10:33 AMJuly 28, 2008How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Global WarmingProfessor Reynolds links to a Popsci.com story Global Warming: Not So Bad. The piece questions the D in DAWG, showing that many people and species are helped by warmer temperatures. A 47-year study of one population of great tits—garden birds about the size of sparrows—is providing hope that some animals can adjust quickly to environmental change. University of Oxford zoologists have found that the birds are laying their eggs earlier in the spring to time the hatching of their chicks to the earlier emergence of caterpillars. Talk about burying the lede! I'd've headlined the article: "Great Tits Love Global Warming!" UPDATE: An emailer is moderately offended and I'm moderately pleased that somebody expected better of me. Sincere apologies all 'round.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:57 AM
| Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:
Wanna talk about moderately offensive? And there's not even any double entendre there! Posted by: johngalt at July 28, 2008 3:29 PM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
Good thing I didn't click that at work. Not that offensive, really, but some people are way too uptight. That's definitely a link for one of my fans, Lord Boner, who hasn't left a comment on my blog in some time. He kept asking me to stop posting about economics and politics, and talk about tatas...jugs...melons... Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 29, 2008 11:33 PMJuly 22, 2008Yet Another DAWG "Denier"As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" If your name is Albert Gore Junior, you ignore those facts. Dr. David Evans, self-described "rocket scientist" and "important and useful" government funded scientist "working to save the planet" chooses not to ignore facts. (Well, whuddaya know... a scientist who actually practices... science!) Dr. Evans now writes, "When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it." 4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect. Read it all. Particularly the other three "most basic salient facts" of which the above is number four. Finally, this: The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory. Duh! Hat tip: johngalt's dad, who also emailed it to Bill O'Reilly today. We'll see if he picks it up.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:48 PM
| Comments (3)
But mdmhvonpa thinks:
Of course, for even printing this you are going to hell as because you are worse than a Nazi pedophile and all. Problem is that with the recent spate of global cooling, the lower planes of damnation are much like a balmy day on the Outer Banks in SC. I hear that the damned souls of insects are a bit of a pain though. Posted by: mdmhvonpa at July 22, 2008 3:10 PM
But jk thinks:
Wow. That's a good, short, and serious whack at the "the science is settled" crowd. I don't know how you kept from excerpting the whole thing. I liked: Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything. Yup, where real data fail to back up computer modeling, let's enhance the data with a little computer modeling. Let me know if Mister O'Reilly can fit it in tonight between Mexican terrorists pouring across the border, speculators driving up oil prices and follow ups on some pretty white woman who is missing somewhere.
But Terri thinks:
Frankly I blame Matt Drudge for global warming. Before he started calling every swirling cloud a major monumental run for you lives disaster storms were just storms and changes in average temperature just meant averages change. Posted by: Terri at July 22, 2008 4:58 PMJuly 11, 2008Cinema News!It's just like E! Network around here (I'm typing this in some very short shorts). Seriously, I hawked Phelim McAleer's documentary "Mine Your Own Business" several times. You should buy the DVD. Today, I get news that he has a new film in the works and it sounds like it's right up the street of your average ThreeSourcer: "Not Evil Just Wrong - The true cost of Global Warming hysteria." Browse around the website a little to see a trailer, a creepy picture of a former VPOTUS, and how you can help bring the film to a cinema near you. Thanks for tuning in -- after the commercial we're talking Counter Insurgency (COIN) tactics with General David Petraeus and Jewell. Jewell's new CD will hit the stores next Thursday...
Posted by John Kranz at 10:15 AM
| Comments (0)
June 23, 2008Smokestack AlBrian Carney takes a well deserved whack at Vice President Gore in today's Political Diary: Smokestack Al
Posted by John Kranz at 12:43 PM
| Comments (0)
June 10, 2008The Science is Settled.
Posted by John Kranz at 5:36 PM
| Comments (0)
June 5, 2008Question the W!I coined the tendentious acronym DAWG because I used to concede that the (G)lobe was indeed (W)arming, and I was staking my ability to generate doubt on whether it was (A)nthropogenic and/or (D)eleterious. Since that time, I have to renege on the W. It seems that the G hasn't really W'd in the last ten years. It's a pretty chilly June 'round these parts, and the University of Alabama at Huntsville said that Global Temperatures Dives in May. Confirming what many of us have already noted from the anecdotal evidence coming in of a much cooler than normal May, such as late spring snows as far south as Arizona, extended skiing in Colorado, and delays in snow cover melting in many parts of the northern hemisphere, the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) published their satellite derived Advanced Microwave Sounder Unit data set of the Lower Troposphere for May 2008. I'm still pretty convinced of G, though. The round-Earth thing has been proven to Popperian standards. Hat-tip: Instapundit
Posted by John Kranz at 10:57 AM
| Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:
But since the "science" is already "settled" the climate change true-believers will tell you we have to have over a hundred years of cooling to indicate a believable trend. That's if they even feel a need to make any argument at all. Carefully reasoned facts weren't required to get them where they are in the first place - why change tactics now? P.S. I'm sitting at my desk with an electric heater warming my feet - on June 5th. Posted by: johngalt at June 5, 2008 3:08 PM
But AtTheWaterCooler thinks:
The Earth is warming, it is flat, frogs are spontaneously generated out of mud, and the five elements are earth, water, air, fire (or ash) and life. Posted by: AtTheWaterCooler at June 6, 2008 9:43 PMMay 27, 2008Wi-Fi AllergyStop the earth - I want off. Seriously, didn't most people have that same reaction to the 1970's nutjobs who wanted to outlaw drilling for oil in this country because it was "dirty?" Leave the idiots alone and look what it gets you - politicians who say things like "gasoline prices are not based on supply and demand, they're being driven up by reckless speculators and obscene oil company profits" and "we can't drill our way out of this problem" when, in fact, that is the ONLY way to bring gasoline prices down. And it makes us "less dependent on foreign oil" at the same time.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:33 PM
April 27, 2008If you can't beat 'em, join 'emJK recently wrote "There is no serious opposition to global warming left in the free world." This is sad and defeatist, but true. Now the intelligent, thoughtful and once-principled Speaker of the "Contract with America" House has teamed up with the current 3rd-in-line for the presidency to film a "We can solve it.org" propaganda ad. The ad paints them in complete agreement, though this liberal blog laments that Gingrich's heart isn't really in it for the good: Despite sitting side-by-side on the couch, Pelosi and Gingrich don't share identical views on climate change. Pelosi is backing a mandatory cap-and-trade system to reduce emissions, while Gingrich would rather use tax credits and other incentives to get industry to switch to low-carbon technologies. But Newt has surrendered the point of the DAWG spear nonetheless. As JK said, no serious opposition left anywhere in the free world.
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:36 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
Et tu, Newto? Posted by: jk at April 27, 2008 5:12 PMApril 23, 2008Bring It OnI refer, of course, to CATT: Cooling Abiotic Terrestrial Temperatures. Phil Chapman loses the trademark Australian calmness under pressure. THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity. He is actually scared. And he is probably right. Cold kills. As a freedom lover, I have to say "bring it on!" There is no serious opposition to global warming left in the free world. The EU nations have completely bought in, and all three current Presidential contenders are DAWG disciples. Nobody is predicting less than Democratic pickups in the house and Senate. PM Rudd in Australia is in (maybe Berlusconi in Italy is not? I don't know). I think HUGE disruptions to freedom and economic growth are a fait accompli -- if not a Fiat X-9. A dramatic continuation of cooling trends might be the only way to shut some of the worst ideas down. And with growth and innovation, we will be best able to deal with cold. Or heat of course, but try to tell "them" that. Hat-tip: Instapundit
Posted by John Kranz at 5:16 PM
April 18, 2008Doubting The W in DAWGA guest Editorial in the WSJ today questions the accuracy of temperature data showing global warming. It's a pretty comprehensive look at the means of collecting data and revisions that have been made to the dataset. Reading it makes a thinking person question the accuracy of historical temperature data. All the shifts in temperature seem like they may be within the margin of error. I enjoyed this look at "Warming Island" in Greenland. Like Love Canal, it turns out Vice President Gore may not have discovered it: The fear of a sudden loss of ice from Greenland also makes a lot of news. A year ago, radio and television were ablaze with the discovery of "Warming Island," a piece of land thought to be part of Greenland. But when the ice receded in the last few years, it turned out that there was open water. Hence Warming Island, which some said hadn't been uncovered for thousands of years. CNN, ABC and the BBC made field trips to the island.
Posted by John Kranz at 2:56 PM
April 8, 2008Broken Windiow FallacyFred Krupp, "president of Environmental Defense Fund and co-author of 'Earth: The Sequel – The Race to Reinvent Energy and Stop Global Warming' (W.W. Norton, 2008)" has a guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal today. Goody-goody, lawd almighty, we all gonna get rich solving global warming! Global warming skeptics notwithstanding, fixing global warming won't be a drain on the economy. On the contrary, it will unleash one of the greatest floods of new wealth in history. When Congress finally acts, America's entrepreneurs and inventors will find the capital they need to solve global warming – and a lot of people will make a killing. Senator Obama preaches a similar message: "millions of green-collar jobs." And I agree, up to a point. I think innovation is headed toward us in energy and that some investors will get very rich and many will find good employment. Where I differ with Krupp and Obama, is that I want to reward innovators and they want to reward rent-seekers. Krupp's article (and I pulled the worst quote out) says that the market is just waiting for government to "set the rules." When cap-and-trade is introduced, everything will take off. I'd suggest the rules have been set already. Petroleum products provide a certain number of KCalories per Mole, and the cost to extract, refine, and transport it is pretty well known. I think Einstein laid down "the rules" for mass and energy -- no need to wait to implement Broussard fusion. Develop away! Sadly, the rules people are waiting for will come from Senator Grassley "how many dollars of subsidies do I get for developing?" and these rules will stifle real innovation and real wealth creation. UPDATE: Even Paul Krugman has come out against Ethanol, but Michael Goldfarb catches him misrepresenting Senator McCain, who has it right: Yes, I oppose subsidies. Not just ethanol subsidies. Subsidies. And not just in Iowa either. I oppose them in my own state of Arizona. ... [I]t also means no rifle-shot tax breaks for big oil. It means no line items for hydrogen, no mandates for other renewable fuels, and no big-government debacles like the Dakotas Synfuels plant. It means ethanol entrepreneurs get a level playing field to make their case -- and earn their profits.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:39 AM
| Comments (2)
But Everyday Economist thinks:
An advanced copy of this book has been sitting on my desk for months, but I just cannot seem to find the drive to delve in. After reading the op-ed, I am glad that the book is collecting dust. Posted by: Everyday Economist at April 9, 2008 11:21 PM
But johngalt thinks:
McCain is a better man than I. I could not have resisted including "... or not" at the end of that final sentence. If "alternative" energy economies made sense economically there'd be no reason to "wait for government." This, by the way, reminds me of the old quip, "If you're waiting for me you're backing up!" Posted by: johngalt at April 12, 2008 12:32 PMApril 4, 2008BrrrrGateway Pundit has a wrapup of weather/climate news. If you go to this post, all the following are links Brrrr... Antarctica Records Record High Ice Cap Growth The post discusses "snow rage:" A record snowfall in eastern Canada this winter has inspired some, crushed others, led to a rash of snow-blower thefts and incited at least two armed clashes, authorities said Wednesday. Cranky, cold, Quebecois -- it's not a pretty sight.
Posted by John Kranz at 4:51 PM
| Comments (1)
But mdmhvonpa thinks:
We could prevent this 'Global Cooling' disaster if we put AlGore on a no-fly list. Posted by: mdmhvonpa at April 7, 2008 11:03 AMApril 3, 2008That's One Unscientific AmericanDon Luskin links to a Scientific American story that, well, let me steal Luskin's summation: "Economics as a whole is invalid because, as I define economics, it doesn't yield the politically correct alarmist interpretation of global warming." As Dave Berry might say, he is not making this up. Unfortunately, it is clear that neoclassical economics has also become outdated. The theory is based on unscientific assumptions that are hindering the implementation of viable economic solutions for global warming and other menacing environmental problems. I'm starting to understand how Galileo felt. Our scientific community has been replaced by a ruling class of religious wackos who care more about Orthodoxy than truth. Eppur si muove, Dr, Nadeau, Eppur si muove.
Posted by John Kranz at 4:35 PM
| Comments (2)
But HB thinks:
1. Doesn't he have to be an economist to make such statements? Such seems to be the policy with respect to critiques of the 'science' of global warming. 2. The Austrian school of economics rejects neoclassical theory on similar grounds and yet most, if not all, Austrians view intervention with respect to global warming as unwarranted as well. In fact, many Austrian justify opposition to intervention through the failure of the neoclassical theory of intervention. Posted by: HB at April 4, 2008 9:31 PM
But johngalt thinks:
A mention of Crichton's 'State of Fear' is appropriate here. I'm just starting to read it so I can't cite any analogies. But let me get this straight: The man (Robert Nadeau) who says there is a worldwide "environmental crisis" - a view principally supported by extensive mathematical modeling - claims that neoclassical economic theory is "outdated" because its mathematical theories are predicated on certain "unscientific assumptions." Can this guy pull rabbits from hats or what! Posted by: johngalt at April 6, 2008 3:40 PMMarch 30, 2008Back to the Caves!Samizdat Thaddeus Tremayne posts the "Earth Lights" pic that we use for the ThreeSources banner and says: I never get tired of looking at this photograph. It never fails to fill me with wonder and awe at the ingenuity of my species who, against all the odds, have carved these glorious man-made islands of light out of the primordial blackness. Whenever I am heavy of heart, I open up this photograph and stare at it to remind me that, somewhere, there is light and life. Then he tells the sad tale of "Earth Hour" where cities are turning off the light for an hour to fight global warming. Tremayne continues: With each passing day I become more convinced that the 'green' movement is actually a millenarian psychosis; a mental and spiritual sickness borne, perhaps, from some degree of civilisational exhaustion. Not just a belief that the end of the world is nigh, but an active desire to bring it about. And soon. Ours is not the first age to witness such pandemics of madness but, in the Middle Ages at least, there was the excuse of a near-universal poverty. In such a state of interminable plight, despair may not be the wisest response but it is at least an understandable one. Heat and light are unalloyed goods to me. Both in moderation of course, but that people are turning off the lights to prevent warming seems a potent presentation of those who would, in Karl Popper's words, "send us back to the caves." John Rockefeller brought heat and light to poor people; he is considered a robber baron. One thinks of the old bumper sticker: "Ban Mining. Let the bastards freeze in the dark." That's what these people want.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:41 PM
March 23, 2008"that's what sceptics have been saying""Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide. That is just one of many stunning admissions in a transcript of a radio interview between Australian Journalist Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, "a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs." Christopher Pearson publishes it in The Australian and suggests "Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril." Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth still warming?" It gets worse from there for the warmies. No doubt Ms. Marohasy will be outed as a corporate shill for the petro industry. Pearson closes with some overly optimistic suggestions that the fall of global warming hysteria will usher in a new era of reason and freedom: With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along. I'm not so sanguine. I think recycling has been substantially discredited, yet my city council last year voted to force it onto all municipal residents. This won't go away, but with a little luck maybe we could get a Republican Presidential candidate to disavow it. Hat-tip: Instapundit
Posted by John Kranz at 12:39 PM
March 19, 2008Headline Of The
| |||||||||||