November 22, 2017

The Last Straw

I will not ask my nieces and nephews and their progeny to live in a world with dumb ass bearded dragons! This stuff has got to stop!


Posted by John Kranz at 2:38 PM | Comments (0)

November 16, 2017

Apocolypse Delayed . . . Again

David French at NRO, like me, has yet to see to dissipation of climate hysteria in our nation's brave and vibrant media outlets.

But he still piles on. VP Gore said in 2006 that the little floating rock we call home "would reach a 'point of no return' in a mere ten years. 2017 - 2006, carry the one ... yup eleven years.

Can we ignore them yet? Apparently not. Being a climate hysteric means never having to say you're sorry. Simply change the cataclysm -- Overpopulation! No, global cooling! No, global warming! No, climate change! -- push the apocalypse back just a few more years, and you're in business, big business. Being a climate hysteric means never having to say youíre sorry.

In reality, I respect the wild-eyed rapture-pastors far more than the climate hysterics. They merely ask me to believe, they donít use the power of government to dictate how I live.

Penn & Teller did a BS on the 2012 Mayan Calendar apocalypse that we still enjoy watching today. In one scene, Teller has a stack of cards of predicted last days. Penn says "well, it might happen in 2012, but it did not in..." and flips through the lengthy list.

Posted by John Kranz at 6:13 PM | Comments (0)

November 7, 2017

A free-market detour on the electrified road to Nirvana?

When President Obama first took office and presided over the "Stimulus Bill" purportedly to kick-start economic growth and counter the nascent recession, one of the mountain of spending programs came in the form of an electric vehicle tax credit. Paid to EV buyers, it was really corporate welfare, designed to incentivize automakers into developing mainstream electric powered vehicles for a citizenry that was, at the time, yearning to be green in the face of a "looming climate change catastrophe."

Those heady days of wunderkind planet-saving schemes seem a distant memory today, as mainstream media barely mentions climate or CO2 any longer. But the EV tax credit is back in the news because, since Democrats insist that any reduction in tax rates imposed on Americans must "pay for itself" in spending reductions or tax hikes elsewhere, the draft tax plan is set to eliminate the credit altogether, in less than 2 months. (Ironically, there were no such demands for the aforementioned Stimulus Bill to be anywhere close to revenue neutral. Curious how that only applies to the bills that reduce government power.)

I'll get my Schadenfreude on with the Reason headline: Republicans' Tax Plan Crashes Jerry Brown's Electric Car Fantasies

If Republicans succeed in getting rid of the feds' $7,500 tax credit for ZEVs - which far outstrips California's additional $2,500 rebate for the same product - Brown will have to devote far more of the state's resources toward reaching 1.5 million ZEVs by 2025.

California is already spending $140 million a year on tax rebates for hybrid and electric vehicles, enough to provide 56,000 people with full-ZEV tax credits. If the federal tax credit were to go away, Brown would have to spend another $420 million to maintain the same subsidies for those 56,000 prospective buyers.

Electric car manufacturers, who sell about half of their electrical vehicle fleet in California, can see the writing on the wall, with many issuing statements urging Congress to reverse course on eliminating the tax credit.

It's hard to imagine Washington taking a principled stand on any issue, much less this popular sop to "protect the environment." But it could happen. Especially since the GOP might pass the bill with little or no Democrat support. But I'm putting down a marker that it won't be included in any final measure that might be signed into law. More likely, it will be spared in exchange for the ending of all state efforts to ban gasoline powered cars entirely.

But it is a fascinating issue to watch as it plays out.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:54 PM | Comments (2)
But jk thinks:

Pile on the points, this game is not over.

The Republican Tax Bill Exacerbated Tesla's Drop Yesterday

As for the game's not being over, I need to change my news feed. Still plenty of CO2 & Climate in my sources.

Posted by: jk at November 8, 2017 9:45 AM
But johngalt thinks:

You're sources must be on the fringe. Here's proof of my perceived change in coverage:

Posted by: johngalt at November 8, 2017 3:01 PM

September 28, 2017

Use the Warming, Luke!

The good week for Lukewarmers persists

We note the increasing discrepancy between the climate models and reality, but what we do, instead of running a series of new models, is rely upon the mathematical form of observed warming. Since the second warming of the 20th century began in the late 1970s, and despite the "pause," the rate has been remarkably linear, which is actually simulated by most climate models--they just overestimate the slope of the increase. However, one model, the INM-CM4 model from Russia's E.M. Volodin, indeed does have the right rate of increase.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:43 AM | Comments (0)

September 21, 2017

Good Week for Lukewarmers

D'ja see this? Didja?

Climate computer model projections of future man-made warming due to human emissions of carbon dioxide are running too hot, says a fascinating new study in Nature Geoscience. Consequently, researchers reckon that humanity has more time to prevent dangerous future climate change than had been suggested earlier by the U.N.s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Insert caveats here...

In other words, climate computer models projected the global average temperature should be about 1.2 C above the pre-industrial baseline for the 2,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide already emitted. Instead, global average temperature is only 0.9 C higher.

Running the models forward from a 2015 baseline yields a carbon budget of around 880 gigatons of additional carbon dioxide before passing through the 1.5 C threshold. That amounts to about 20 years of emissions.

A later paragraph suggests 30 years. I say, let's spend the next 20-30 years getting richer and smarter. Them we will be able to tackle it effectively if needed.

Posted by John Kranz at 6:46 PM | Comments (5)
But nanobrewer thinks:

Last week, the tireless ones at PowerLine brought up this article that noted, amongst other things:

the good match between surface air temperatures and model simulations (in the Northern Hemisphere but less so in the Southern) was a result of homogeneity adjustments that added non-existent warming to the raw records. Whether these adjustments were applied in a deliberate attempt to match observations to AGW theory is, however, questionable. They are more likely a result of the initial and never-questioned assumption that the raw records were cooling-biased by such things as station moves from downtown to airport locations
it’s difficult to escape the conclusion that these adjustments were applied in a deliberate attempt to match the measurements to the models. But if so the attempt was not blessed with success. The match between the published series and model simulations is still poor.

Here's the URL for the PL article: the commentoriat take this ball, over the endzone and spike it in the press box!

Posted by: nanobrewer at September 22, 2017 8:05 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

Thru the PL peanut gallery, I found this
excellent page with all sorts of neat ideas and graphics supporting new, low-pressure, nuclear plant ideas. The "deaths per TWHr Generated" graphic is sobering (what about solar kills people, I wonder?) and sure to please the kill-coal crowd.

Posted by: nanobrewer at September 22, 2017 8:11 PM
But jk thinks:

I do love ThreeSources: the one spot on Earth where I'm not the denier.

I am sympathetic to the suggestion of jiggery-pokery's (if I am using that term correctly) producing observed warming. I was turned around mostly by the BEST (Berkeley Estimated Surface Temperatures) paper. It has now grown into an interesting but rah-rah website.

These people took a very serious and data-intensive look at many of the objections I had: urban heat island, &c. At the end, I found it compelling, and joined Matt Ridley and Ronald Bailey in the "Lukewarmer" camp.

Posted by: jk at September 23, 2017 10:59 AM
But nanobrewer thinks:

Hi, thanks for the reminder and vote of confidence in the BEST paper (cool, website "Berkeley Earth").

Libertarians love things that are transparent (unless it's the Obama kinds of "transparent"). How much warming since Y2k does the BEST paper say has occurred?

Posted by: nanobrewer at September 25, 2017 12:28 PM
But jk thinks:

"1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years."

Commensurate with a lukewarmer sensitivity of about 1.3°C per doubling of CO2. I like this because it is the exact amount predicted by pure CO2 -- the larger values include feedback warming which I find dubious.

Posted by: jk at September 25, 2017 2:36 PM

September 12, 2017

I'm a Very Bad Man


August 25, 2017

Posted by John Kranz at 6:03 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

I don't see it. Did you pull it?

No, I've got it - Facebook spiked it! ;)

Posted by: johngalt at September 13, 2017 1:37 PM

August 25, 2017

And, the Asshole of the Day Award goes to...

Doctor Neil deGrasse Tyson:


This was on SciBabe's Facebook feed. Love her, but she has a blind spot for doctor supercilious.

Posted by John Kranz at 5:11 PM | Comments (3)
But jk thinks:

I commented "I bet there were a few doubters last week."

Posted by: jk at August 25, 2017 6:14 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Dear Dr. Ty,

Would that be "predicted" from tree rings and insect larvae examined last century, or "forecast" from atmospheric observations over the past thirteen days?

(Even then, only prompting an NHC advisory 8 days ago.)

But yeah, I guess weather is a proxy for climate predictions then after all, right?

Posted by: johngalt at August 25, 2017 7:10 PM
But jk thinks:

The post drew several comments along the lines of climate != weather. Our hostess defended the tweet with "It's Dr. Tyson!"

Well, then.

Posted by: jk at August 26, 2017 1:24 PM

July 13, 2017

Did Someone Say "Government Boondoggle?"

Not our government this time, but that of South Australia (which should be thought of as "like Canada" because down under it gets colder as you go south, not warmer, and because they have a higher than average propensity for telling people what to do, and going along with what they're told.)

Elon Musk's Tesla has contracted to provide the "world's largest battery storage facility" for connection to South Australia's electrical grid. The 100 Megawatt, 129 Megawatt-hour array of thermally-managed rechargeable lithium-ion battery packs "will be able to power around 30,000 homes at max capacity, which Tesla says is equivalent to how many were without power during a storm that caused a state-wide blackout in South Australia in 2016. The real goal, however, is to help stabilize the South Australian electric power grid, by controlling power delivery according to peak demand."

Nevermind that the storm lasted for days, and the battery can power all of those homes for just a little more than an hour, the real necessity is grid stabilization. Not because loads fluctuate any more than they ever have, but because generation by wind is inherently variable and unreliable. And if wind speeds are either too low, or too high, for more than that hour-plus, the same problem would occur.

But why is SA in this situation?

South Australia needs this project because of decisions by its political leaders:

Over the last three years, South Australia has decided to shut down its coal-fired power stations and instead rely on wind, solar and gas.

I won't debate the merits of such policy here except to wonder whether building additional gas-fired electrical generation would be a far less costly and more reliable solution than relying on wind and batteries.

Fear not - they're doing that too:

The system will not solve South Australia's grid woes by itself.

The response plan also includes a new government funded, A$360 million, 250 MWe fast reacting gas turbine power plant, a bulk electricity purchase contract designed to encourage construction of a new privately owned power plant, a taxpayer financed exploration fund for additional natural gas supplies, special powers granted to the SA energy minister to order plants to operate, and a requirement for electricity retailers to purchase a fixed portion of their power from SA generators.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:49 PM | Comments (0)

Headline of the Day

"Media gets high on Antarctic Crack"

Anthony Watts at Watts Up With That hits a favorite refrain of mine. There is insufficient appreciation among scientists and zero for journalists about the proportion of the Earth's duration which we have witnessed or recorded. He responds to "the biggest iceberg scientists have seen:"

So what? There weren't any "Arctic or Antarctic scientists" a mere half-decade ago, and bases weren't even established until World War II followed by a hectic post-war expansion:

My version of this story is that moths only live one day, so I always picture the VP Al Gore moth panicking as the skies get dark, "Oh my, what have we done? This has never happened before." It's a goofy story, but we are moths to geology.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:00 PM | Comments (0)

July 12, 2017


George Ip has a great article in the WSJ today. It is even in the "Economy" section, not those wingnutty Ed pages.

He makes a superb point about Electric Cars. But starts with a pedestrian point, near and dear to ThreeSourcers' icy, lithium hearts:

Nonetheless, that means a 75 kwh battery (about what you need for 250 miles of range) still adds about $20,000 to a car's cost. So how do the cars sell? Public largess helps a lot.

The federal government offers a tax credit of up to $7,500 each for the first 200,000 electric or plug-in hybrid cars a manufacturer sells. Throw in state tax credits, subsidies for recharging infrastructure, relief from gasoline taxes, preferential lanes and parking spots and government fleet purchases, and taxpayers help pay for every electric car on the road.

What happens when the credits go away? When Hong Kong slashed a tax break worth roughly $55,000 for a Tesla in April, its sales ground to a halt. In Georgia, electric vehicle sales plummeted 80% the month after a $5,000 tax credit was repealed.

The even better point is that -- in the estimated eight years required for them to become price competitive -- the energy industry and developers of traditional vehicles will see incredible advances and innovation.

The parity estimations fail to take this in to account. The 2026 Volvo Gëfüülstenschteerën will not be compared to the 2017 Chevy.

Posted by John Kranz at 6:09 PM | Comments (5)
But johngalt thinks:

Lessee, $7,500 times two-hundred-thousand adds up to, fifteen with eight trailing zeroes... $1.5 ba-ba-billion. Per automobile manufacturer. A car company would have to be nuts not to make some to collect their share of OPM*.

That said, I'm warming to the gasoline-hybrid tech. Electric motors can't be beat for torque, efficiency, quietness, simplicity and longevity. It's the electricity storage and replentishment that falls short - along with ability to create heat as needed. Both of these problems are easily solved with a petrol-powered generator. Clever folks have found a way to share this petrol power between charging and wheel turning. And at least one of government's declared intentions with this multi-billion dollar bonanza is coming true: Higher volumes of hybrid systems are bringing costs down and quality up.

Pure electric still has obstacles galore, but I'm convinced that hybrid will soon be as ubiquitous as unleaded gasoline, which was unimaginable in the days of "ethyl" gas. I hope I'm wrong, 'cause if I buy one I'll really enjoy being "better" than all the other single-occupant drivers who can't use the express lane and the front row parking.

Posted by: johngalt at July 13, 2017 2:48 PM
But jk thinks:

I think we all agree with whatever tech that could win out in a non-subsidized field.

The manufacturers certainly share your enthusiasm for hybrid. I confess to two concerns, either or both might be unfounded:

-- Thanks to Penn & Teller's show on Hybrids, every tine we spot one the lovely bride and I yell "It's like having two extra lesbians in the trunk!" If you don't get the allusion, you should look up the program ("Nukes, Hybrids & Lesbians"), but the theory is that two engines and mechanisms to switch between them add quite a bit of weight. (At least ten years old, your reports of innovation might have obviated this -- though it is still funny.)

-- How much are the manufacturers counting on government back-pats and consumer halo effect? I see the (I am not a Lexus guy, but outrageously sexy) Lexus L500C advertised. in a conventional or hybrid. I'd love Clarkson, May and Hammond when he gets out of the hospital to evaluate them side by side and honestly.

Posted by: jk at July 13, 2017 6:47 PM
But johngalt thinks:

I don't get the allusion. I did look up the program. It's on Prime! Now I'm almost guaranteed to watch all eight seasons, not needing a Showtime subscription or having to watch on my PC.

One of the points they made about "nuclear" is that you can say it without the word "bomb." Accordingly, you can say the word "hybrid" without the word "Prius."

P&T accurately concluded that the ugly Prius with non-remarkable fuel economy is "no good for a family of four." Yours truly is ogling a hybrid that is perfect for a family of six. It is the first ever hybrid minivan, and is also a plug-in hybrid. It gets 33 mpg instead of 22, and that's without plugging in. Charging at home regularly gives fuel economy equal to the Prius. Or better. (Mfr claims MPGe of 84.) And to top it off, it's Italian! Or maybe it's a Mopar. It's hard to tell these days but either way is fine by me.

Do I have concerns about the battery life? Yes. The fly-by-wire hardware and firmware? Naturally. But I also trust in Moore's law to bring battery costs down before the 100,000 mile (or 10 years, but mine will never take that long) warranty expires. To buy a replacement battery today is priced at $13k, but I'm told that is a "placeholder" price that will come down by the time they're actually available.

I've driven one of these and I liken it to driving a spaceship. It's so quiet that all you can hear is a fan sound from the engine compartment. But only from outside the car. Inside it's virtually noiseless.

On top of all this there is the significant fact that Chrysler is still a tax credit eligible manufacturer, so between Federal and State "hippie credits" it costs $12,500 less than the dealer price by the time I prepare my tax returns. Pass the patchouli bro!

But now I gotta go 'cause it's time for pre-race coverage of the New York ePrix, all electric Gran Prix race. (11:00 MDT today on Fox) Right on, dude!

Posted by: johngalt at July 16, 2017 12:47 PM
But jk thinks:

I'm going to cede to your "authoriteh." Any biases you might bring to the evaluation would run the other way. Ergo, if you have been won over with the technology, I am convinced.

Though I'd still like to see the subsidies disappear...

Posted by: jk at July 17, 2017 11:54 AM
But johngalt thinks:

As would I. It irks me to see, as Jon Caldera describes it, "government subsidizing rich, white guys buying their vanity cars." But it exists whether I participate or not so, as long as it's there...

As Penn explained, its not about the "hybrid" (or the "nookulur") it's about what you do with the technology. Since it was born from the urge to be more efficient in the name of conservation, emissions reduction and all-around minimalism, it was natural that its first incarnations were the hair-shirts of the automotive specie. But eventually, some human or another will use it to create "bloody hell fire.

The world's first hybrid minivan is somewhere in between.

Posted by: johngalt at July 17, 2017 2:59 PM

July 7, 2017

"Repeal and Replace" Climate Change

Federalist contributor Julie Kelly has a concise analysis of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's planned "Red Team - Blue Team" fact-based public inquiry into the complete state of scientific understanding of Climate Change. It will come as a surprise to many, although not ThreeSourcers, that "Team Science" isn't amused.

Now you would think the scientific establishment would embrace an opportunity to present their case to a wary, if disinterested, public. You would think the 97 percent of scientists who supposedly all agree human activity is causing climate change would eagerly line up to vanquish climate deniers, especially those in the Trump administration. You would think the same folks who fear a science-averse President Trump would be relieved his administration is encouraging a rigorous, forensic inquiry into the most consequential scientific issue of our time that has wide-ranging economic, social, and political ramifications around the world.

You would think.

I won't excerpt the real reason she suggests they fear such an inquiry. Like I said, the linked article is concise. But I will give a spoiler alert: Politics.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:18 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

"The science has been so settled, for so long, that we can't explain why."

You've probably forgotten all of the evidence and reason, haven't you?

"Umm, forgotten. Yeah, that's it! We forgot!"

Posted by: johngalt at July 7, 2017 8:05 PM

June 19, 2017

Energy Sec Expresses Opinion!

¡quel horreur!

The Denver Post in incensed (oh, is that that smell) because "Rick Perry just denied that humans are the main cause of climate change " Some denier:

Perry added that "the fact is this shouldn't be a debate about, 'Is the climate changing, is man having an effect on it?' Yeah, we are. The question should be just how much, and what are the policy changes that we need to make to effect that?"

I know what you're thinking. "Effect with an e?" but never mind that now. The truly disturbing part is that no dissent will be tolerated. Let's measure the Secretary's stunning dissent:
"It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century," the IPCC said in a 2013 report

So, something the UN said was "extremely likely: in 2013, Perry suggests may not be true. Stop the presses.

It's funny but it is not. It is a shot across the bow. The Dr. Manns of the world control the dialog and heterodoxy will not be tolerated

In completely unrelated news -- I don't know why I even bring it up -- this week's Econtalk about Churchill and George Orwell is quite worthwhile.

Posted by John Kranz at 6:51 PM | Comments (0)

June 8, 2017

Otequay of the Day

Cheap energy fuels the economy and Americans don't want that to change. By withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, Trump sided with the majority of Americans, according to the very same polls his opponents use to condemn him.

Anneke E. Green
RCP Contributor
June 08, 2017

In: Trump's Paris Decision: Let's Make a Deal (or Not)

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:21 PM | Comments (0)

June 5, 2017

All Hail Harsanyi

This, I suspect, is one major reason climate change isn't really a salient politic issue. No amount of hysteria is going to reverse this dynamic. Because, in the end, Malthusianism is no better than denialism -- it is denialism, in fact. It is a belief that ignores history, human nature, and most importantly tradeoffs. Lots of people seem to understand this, either in stark political terms or intuitively. Sure, they say the things expected of them, but their actions betray a trust in human adaptability and technology more than in guesstimates. Many of them have lived through the eco-scaremongering of the 70s and 80s, and yet, they now see innovation spreading in a cleaner world where poverty has dramatically fallen and, by almost every quantifiable measure, human existence is improving. -- David Harsanyi: Democrats Have Lost On Climate Change, And It's Their Own Fault
Posted by John Kranz at 5:52 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

And it's analogous to respondents who say they are "undecided" in presidential preference polls while knowing full well they intend to vote for Donald J. Trump - the man who "could never be elected president."

Posted by: johngalt at June 6, 2017 4:27 PM

June 1, 2017


While we await the President's announcement that the United States will not participate in the Paris Accord on Climate Change, we see some of the fevered pleadings of those most invested in the "deal." One such interested party is the Vatican, who "would see U.S. Paris deal exit as a slap in the face."

[Bishop Marcelo] Sanchez Sorondo, [head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences] said he believed the U.S. oil lobby was behind the decision and that the industry had "manoeuvred" Trump.

A withdrawal "would not only be a disaster but completely unscientific," he said. "Saying that we need to rely on coal and oil is like saying that the earth is not round. It is an absurdity dictated by the need to make money."

But the good Bishop, head of the curious "science academy" in the Vatican, should consult his basic Marxist teachings: Money must be made before money can be redistributed.

One can be forgiven for concluding that the Catholic church, under current leadership, has added "making money" as the newest deadly sin.

UPDATE: Trump will announce U.S. withdrawal from Paris climate accord: document

Trump will say the Paris agreement "front loads costs on American people," the document said.

In other words, it takes wealth from American people and distributes it to other people.

U.S. supporters of the pact said any pullout by Trump would represent an abdication of American leadership on a leading issue of our time and would show that the United States cannot be trusted to follow through on international commitments.

To me, it says something entirely different. It represents American leadership in a different direction than what "everybody knows" needs to be done, turning instead to what actually needs to be done: Get government out of the way of productive people. It also says that international commitments made by one American president are subject to constant scrutiny by the American people. We have no king in our country.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:11 PM | Comments (5)
But jk thinks:

Nope. Cannot be done.

(You might want a small sedative before watching the linked video.)

Posted by: jk at June 1, 2017 3:29 PM
But jk thinks:

And, much as I love beating up on the current Pontiff, they've never been too keen on anybody but them making money. Matthew 19:24

Posted by: jk at June 1, 2017 3:31 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Reply to Comment the One - HAHAHAHAHA! "The law is the law and it must be obeyed." Take that, POTUS. Potus the prior is still in charge. If you fail to send ba-billions of American dollars to the Green Climate Fund, EU President Junker will send men with guns to take it. (Where's the watch party? I'll bring the popcorn.)

Reply to Comment the Two - Catholics have always endorsed making money, as well as redistributing money. Now they seem to distinguish between the two.

Posted by: johngalt at June 1, 2017 3:48 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

Leave it to a bureauRat of the E.C. to try to lecture the US on law. Silly poofter... he believes international law has some validity!
Even the radio lady from Fox news snidely pointed out "nearly every nation" had signed Paris accords.

Does someone have a summary of the outlays (from US, of course) to the recipients? I've heard $3T bantered about. But Hinderocker says the text of the accord has only silly levels of bureaucrateze aimed no doubt at favorable media coverage. One supposes the "devil" (aka, wealth transfer) is to occur in the lower-level nitty gritty where the administratum takes control.

POwerLine's Hinderocker cited some interesting paragraphs from the silly accord:

1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party,
but it's not "in force" in the U.S. you effete snob, it's just an agreement. One to which POdTUS does not agree. This is my favorite:
5. Parties acknowledge that adaptation action should follow a country-driven, gender-responsive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, and should be based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional knowledge, knowledge of indigenous peoples and local knowledge systems, with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant socioeconomic and environmental policies and actions, where appropriate.
What a bunch of nonsense.

Posted by: nanobrewer at June 2, 2017 9:43 AM
But johngalt thinks:

This article has a citation to the three ta-ta-ta-trillion dollar cost to the US economy through 2040, along with 6.5 million fewer jobs.

As I read this I thought how generous it is of America's "Mayors National Climate Action Agenda" to step in and sign their cities up to carry the load just SHRUGGED by President Trump. If all 88 mayors eventually get on board that's only $34.1 ba-ba-billion per city. And the 6.5 million forsaken jobs is only 15% of those cities combined population, who will be jobless and lining up for their new welfare checks.

Posted by: johngalt at June 2, 2017 11:12 AM

Quote of the Day

And so President Obama came home from the Paris meetings to the acclaim of all the right people. He alone had made the responsible choice on behalf of the entire country: every business, every worker, every consumer, every single person living within these borders who uses some measure of this thing we call energy. He would be our master and commander, ruling on our behalf, fresh off cocktail parties in Paris where the best and brightest -- armed with briefcases full of government-funded science -- decided to give the Industrial Revolution its final comeuppance. -- Jeffrey Tucker @ FEE
Posted by John Kranz at 2:38 PM | Comments (0)

May 30, 2017

Quote of the Day

Mr. Trump should decline [signing on to the Paris climate accord] if he wants to fulfill his campaign promises to lift the U.S. economy. Mrs. Merkel's embrace of green-energy dogmas has done enormous harm to the German economy. She reacted to the Fukushima meltdown by phasing out nuclear power, and her government has force-fed hundreds of billions of dollars into solar and wind power that have raised energy costs. As Der Spiegel once put it, electricity is now a "luxury good" in Germany. -- WSJ Ed Page
Posted by John Kranz at 9:20 AM | Comments (4)
But johngalt thinks:

It would seem that WSJ joining the ranks of climate "deniers" is big news. Don't they understand that "climate change is undeniable?" And "climate action is unstoppable?"

When did Breitbart acquire the WSJ?

Posted by: johngalt at May 31, 2017 6:24 PM
But jk thinks:

At the risk of missing a touch of sarcasm, I'd point out that the WSJ News Pages are most certainly all-in for the risks of man-made climate change. The Editorial board, however, deserves awards for decades of reasonable skepticism. They've published a gooberload of guest editorials from Richard Lindzen of MIT, John Christy of UAH, and Bjorn Lomborg.

Posted by: jk at June 1, 2017 2:49 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Fair enough. And I willfully conjoined the two wings of that newsprint bird-of-prey. And they earn this disapprobation from me for being tools of the pre-Trump status quo once referred to as "RINO" or "Establishment." That they, and even the likes of Mitch McConnell, now endorse exiting the deal is evidence, to me at least, of their redeemability.

Posted by: johngalt at June 1, 2017 3:27 PM
But jk thinks:

But it's not a function of time. I assure you you will find consistent and stern opposition to the Paris Agreement. The differences I see between you and the Ed Page are issue by issue, not last administration versus this.

On a lighter note, I was thinking about prey-bird-wings today -- which I fairly-or-not ascribe to you and Mr. Pat Buchannan. My own biological brother was passionately commenting on an "Anonymous" meme with Guy Fawkes and "both parties are bought by the same Corporations" yadda-yadda. It was "a lie, repeated so often that it is thought true" and "the reason we got Trump."

Pragmatism -- maybe we are related after all.

Posted by: jk at June 1, 2017 3:42 PM

April 25, 2017

The pros and cons of carbon dioxide

Pros? Well then, now that I've "outed" myself as "anti-science"...

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (read: self-interested government bureaucracy) has concluded that carbon dioxide (CO2) is an atmospheric "pollutant" that is subject to regulation - by them - under the Clean Air Act. Their power grab has been deified by a SCOTUS ruling that such a policy is, somehow, not Unconstitutional. As a result of that, not to mention a relentless campaign to vilify CO2 and the "fossil" fuel consumption that emits it, the approval rating of this little molecule is in the toilet. Which is surprising because the biological process of photosynthesis is one of the few components of a classical education that has not been eliminated from our schools. Somehow a public perception exists that while plants are good, the primary contributor to plant life is bad. Recent congressional testimony sought to put a dent in this "science-based" belief:

There are many other byproducts of combustion that really are pollutants, in that they have measureable harms to many forms of life, from plants to humans. But those have been regulated nearly out of existence - a fact I am not sorry to acknowledge. But let's not ignore that CO2 is the opposite of a pollutant - it is an essential compound for cellular growth of plants, and therefore animals, and therefore all mankind.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:48 PM | Comments (2)
But jk thinks:

"our Luke-warming home planet [~0:40]"

Posted by: jk at April 25, 2017 4:27 PM
But Truth thinks:

I have met many climate change deniers and I am still baffled by their statist, uninformed commitment to partial truths and misinformation. The seem incapable of carrying the cognitive load required to comprehend the facts behind climate science. This article does a good job of combining the collection of poor arguments frequently regurgitated by the "denialists"

Posted by: Truth at July 24, 2017 9:33 AM

April 19, 2017

Even for "The Nation" I'm impressed

The Other Poison Gas Killing Syrians: Carbon Dioxide Emissions

If Trump and his cronies really cared about children killed by noxious gases, they wouldn't be trying to spew ever more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Which is more frightening? That Juan Cole actually believes this nonsense or that they are so tone-deaf and reality-resistant that they publish it anyway?

Posted by John Kranz at 9:51 AM | Comments (0)

April 3, 2017

Fighting for Hundreths of a Degree

Holman Jenkins says "The Climate Yawns" as Washington fights over President Trump's climate actions.

Even so, many climate activists felt the need to walk back Ms. [Gina] McCarthy's concession by insisting Obama policies would have a measurable effect--on the amount of CO 2 released. Yes, the relative decrease would be tiny but measurable, though the climate effect would be zip. This is akin to medical researchers claiming a drug a success because it's detectable in the bloodstream, not because it improves health.

And don't get us started on the "social cost of carbon," a mechanism of policy justification created by the Obama EPA to assign a dollar-value benefit to carbon abatement rules that, in total, will produce zero impact on climate.

Pile up all the government policies enacted or seriously on the table, and their net effect is zilch. A new McKinsey study, that would be hilarious if it weren't so sad, points out that Germany's switch to renewables has been a success by almost every metric except CO 2 output--which is up instead of down.

Rising energy prices to support this energy transition have had one measurable effect--more than 330,000 German households have had their electricity shut off in the past year from nonpayment of bills almost three times as high as those paid by U.S. households.

Germany, needless to add, is many greens' idea of a country "positioned for leadership in international discussions."

EPA Chief Scott Pruitt was on FOX News Sunday yesterday (or, YesterNewsDay). He was enduring some withering criticism from host Chris Wallace, who was credibly pitching some nonsensical but officially-fabricated stats on lost lives, work days, and lung capacity if the Clean Power Plan was rolled back.

I suspect I am not the only one who coaches politicians by speaking loudly toward the TV. Pruitt did fine, but what I think is needed is to bifurcate between "Carbon Pollution" which is not pollution, and SOx, NOx, and particulates which are. Pruitt was sketching the difference but failed to say it explicitly.

It's actually a pretty good political point to say that we'll divert resources to real pollution which causes real health problems, and has a real Congressional foundation in enforcing the Clean Air Act.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:22 AM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

I noticed the same thing, blog brother, but concluded that the fine-line-walking was intentional and strategic. You and I noticed the distinction but many others who paid attention will not. And those who didn't pay attention would be even less impressed. But had he said what you and I believe the anti-science left would have pounced with their heretical "Denier" attacks. He was, as they like to say in Washington, acting "presidential."

One quibble - your title says "fighting for hundredths of a degree" which I find generous. They are fighting for ONE hundredth of a degree, by the end of the century! I did the math on the not-so-Clean Power Plan yesterday. The $9B per year that it will cost industry (not to mention consumers) works out to a tidy sum that only a Democrat could find justifiable - thirty-nine ta-ta-trillion dollars per degree of warming prevented.

I guess we can only be thankful that they didn't insist on making a full degree of difference in eighty seven years.

Posted by: johngalt at April 3, 2017 11:25 AM

March 30, 2017

Pollution "Costs"

Still on the theme of government getting everything wrong in energy policy, Investors Ed Page shares how President Obama's EPA fudged the spreadsheet in creating health cost savings to offset energy cost hikes.

In pushing the Clean Power Plan, the EPA claimed it would cost industry $9 billion a year, but produce up to $54 billion in annual health benefits, including "avoiding 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children."

Who could complain about that?

Turns out, the benefits of the Clean Power Plan will be closer to $0, while the costs would be far higher than the EPA claims.

Yes, fellow Americans, we've been played.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:38 PM | Comments (2)
But nanobrewer thinks:

I read an energy newsletter in work downtime (decreasing soon, now that I've seen my 2017 goals), that has real baseball-insider level detail on the actions of FERC and the lawyers/lobbyists who quibble, sue and defend the edicts (technically, NOPR's) that drive the grid. Some authors are outing themselves as on the activist side (aka, citing "97% of scientists" as tacit truism). I'm collecting a string of stories on the cost of Renewables ("RE"), and found this bit interesting not the least b/c the "source" wished to stay hidden:

Another source, who asked not to be identified, attributed the {RE} growth to reasons other than tax credits ‚ÄĒ at least in those areas with vertically integrated utilities.
"Utilities figured out a few years ago that they can put in high cost renewables and pass along price increases to customers because the commissions and enviros won't push back," the source said in an email Tuesday. "The more they spend, the more they make. If they put in lower cost traditional generation, they'll be fought tooth and nail. If they keep existing coal generation, they can’t raise rates. Shut down coal, add renewables and raise rates. ... Electric utility rates have gone up on average about 50% over the past decade ... and they'll continue to rise if renewables keep going in."
"Prices will rise as more and more renewables are installed," the source said. "Renewables impose additional costs that are not normally included in their 'cost.'

Posted by: nanobrewer at April 1, 2017 9:47 AM
But johngalt thinks:

Excellent point, and from an inside source that gives it more credibility than my personal observations, reading the news reports of ratepayer hikes approved by Colorado's highly politicized Public Utilities Commission. There is literally no limit to the places and ways that special interest mischief can be promulgated upon the public in our "advanced" society.

Posted by: johngalt at April 2, 2017 3:54 PM

February 15, 2017

A More Productive Debate?

Lost in the loud arguments and accusations of denialism are the undeniable failures of every effort to reduce climate change.

In America, we can point to the ethanol debacle. Outside the offices of ADM's lobbying arm, who is left to defend burning corn in cars? It has failed to reduce CO2, impacted food prices and supply, raised fuel costs, and damaged some engines. The science is settled.

Europeans, though, they're smart folk. They wouldn't do anything quite so schtööpid now would they?

Virtually everyone agrees Europe's "dash for diesel" was a monstrous policy error, not to mention the proximate cause of the emissions-cheating scandal that has engulfed Volkswagen and other auto makers. Yet the overarching imperative today is to vilify the car companies and insist they do better at achieving meaningless reductions in CO 2 emissions, now by forcing them to build electric cars that customers must be bribed and pressured into buying. Not to be questioned, though, is the green agenda or the competence of Europe's political class.

All to achieve an estimated 0.004° C reduction in warming (although the dense soot over European cities might offer some reflective benefit).

Posted by John Kranz at 10:01 AM | Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:

News you can use: In France, diesel fuel is called "gazole" at the pump. I think that first stop for fuel took us 45 minutes, stop to start, looking for "diesel." Well, and getting one of the credit cards authorized.

Posted by: johngalt at February 15, 2017 3:43 PM
But jk thinks:

¡Mon Dieu!

Posted by: jk at February 15, 2017 4:51 PM

February 6, 2017

Climategate II

On the same weekend as Superbowl LI, we have another sequel - this one more important than any football game - a sequel to the original Climategate politicized science scandal.

A just retired NOAA senior scientist, responsible for data integrity and archival, says the data behind "2016 is the hottest year on record" is misleading and "unverified." Not to mention the dubious adjustments.

Dr Bates said: 'They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and "corrected" it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that's what they did - so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.'

ERSSTv4 'adjusted' buoy readings up by 0.12C. It also ignored data from satellites that measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, which are also considered reliable. Dr. Bates said he gave the paper's co-authors 'a hard time' about this, 'and they never really justified what they were doing.'

It's possible I buried the lede, since there's also accusations that the data cooking and the report that contained it were rushed through so as to be public in advance of the Paris Climate Conference. All the better to engineer public policy with, my dear. Oh, and the computer on which all of the fancy data manipulations were calculated has since experienced "complete failure" rendering it unavailable for verification analyses. It also seems that the (apparently intentional) errors were planned to be blamed on the incoming administration "not retaining important climate related data." Except a top scientist with knowledge of the events has stepped forward and blown the whistle.

Posted by JohnGalt at 12:29 PM | Comments (0)

February 3, 2017

Fossil remains within "fossil" fuel?


If "fossil" fuels, like natural gas, crude oil and coal, are really the product of decomposing ancient plants and animals, how can they also fossilize ancient plants and animals as shown in the picture above? A blog entry at Unconventional Geology quotes a Dr. Thomas Gold:

"The coal we dig is hard, brittle stuff [but] it was once a liquid, because we find embedded in the middle of a six-foot seam of coal such things as a delicate wing of some animal or a leaf of a plant. They are undestroyed, absolutely preserved, with every cell in that fossil filled with exactly the same coal as all the coal on the outside... The fact that coal contains fossils does not prove that it is a fossil fuel; it proves exactly the opposite. Those fossils you find in coal prove that coal is not made from those fossils. How could you take a forest and much it all up so that it is a completely featureless big black substance and then find one leaf in it that is perfectly preserved? That is absolute nonsense."

According to the abiotic theory of geologic hydrocarbon fuels, occasionally mentioned 'round these parts, "fossil" fuels are, in actuality, renewable. And naturally so.

Posted by JohnGalt at 6:17 PM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

Brothers forever! Thanks.

I had the disadvantage of first hearing about this from an incredibly gifted and charismatic physicist. The former President of the College I was attending and I were dinner guests at the home of a PhD candidate and hippie guitar player bandmate.

Dr. Colgate explained this forcefully and lucidly and the 19-year-old me was forever convinced. I try to look back and see if I was perhaps bamboozled. Yet, once you accept it, the reigning, dead-dinosaur-guts theory seems the crazy one.

The heart is that every astronomical object of remotely similar makeup "outgasses" hydrocarbons. Earth would be very strange if I did not. It's not a great stretch to think the trip from core to crust could produce more complex organic molecules through heat and pressure.

I gave away my age. Jimmy Carter was President, Fitzpatrick Sale was selling books, and our world was at Peak Everything. Aside from the Rolling Stones output, things were bleak and Malthusian.

This was like discovering Rearden metal. "Wait a minute, you mean there might be all the oil we ever want just as a gift of our astronomical heritage?" It may have been the foundation of my optimism.

Posted by: jk at February 3, 2017 6:45 PM


I know that we have reported this a few times. But it appears that -- once again -- that whole Global Warming Thingy you have heard so much about has been fixed.

Tim Worstall at the Adam Smith Institute (Yes, I know that brother nb is boycotting them but the rest of you can click) points to a new report by the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London and the Carbon Tracker Initiative, claiming that "Falling costs of electric vehicles and solar panels could halt worldwide growth in demand for oil and coal by 2020"

And thus we're done.

Oddly, those at the Grantham Institute seem not to realise all of this which is why we need to remind them. As we are. All that we ever needed to do to beat climate change, from those usual and mainstream climate science sources, is get non-fossil power cheap enough. And as their report today says we've done that.

Hurrah, eh?

Smoke 'em if you've got 'em! We've triumphed yet again.

Posted by John Kranz at 1:54 PM | Comments (3)
But johngalt thinks:



The U.S. government Energy Information Administration [pre-Trump] estimates that as far into the future as 2040 the "fossil" fuel component of U.S. electric generation will be 58 to 70 percent. (second chart)

This seems likely only to increase after President Trump decriminalizes coal. Congress is wasting no time getting started.

Posted by: johngalt at February 3, 2017 6:05 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

All that amazing navel gazing I'm missing... I'll just have to muddle through, sans dissing

Posted by: nanobrewer at February 4, 2017 12:10 AM
But jk thinks:


Posted by: jk at February 5, 2017 12:20 PM

January 25, 2017

You Have a Lot of Rice to Eat

The title is a wonderful Filipino phrase for when a young person says something betraying a lack of maturity. As I have some completely vegan "red meat" for the denier and lukewarmer community, I felt I might borrow it.

This is from 2012, and Australia (land of Caaaaaahbon Dioxode) -- but I think you can update it mentally:

Posted by John Kranz at 2:00 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

The previous president had Climate Change second only to Civil Rights as a priority issue. The new president has made an adjustment. Now it's somewhere lower than number 6.

Posted by: johngalt at January 25, 2017 7:59 PM

January 16, 2017

Quote of the Day

Meanwhile, in a nine-page questionnaire to Ben Carson, who is being sent to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Elizabeth Warren wanted to learn what the doctor thought about "C0 2 and other greenhouse gas emissions," because extreme weather like flooding poses "a significant risk to public housing."

"What other actions will you take to adapt to or prevent climate change while you are HUD Secretary?" Ms. Warren wondered. Maybe Dr. Carson's tenure will be the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal. -- WSJ Ed Page

Posted by John Kranz at 12:10 PM | Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:

I thought that moment had already, famously, occurred - in 1998.

Posted by: johngalt at January 16, 2017 4:04 PM
But johngalt thinks:

And as President Obama leaves office, the crises of extreme weather and sea level rise are also well under control.

Posted by: johngalt at January 16, 2017 4:06 PM

January 13, 2017

Making Western Water Great Again

President Trump is not even President yet and he's already inspiring positive change to the drought conditions in the western United States. Almost all of the average precipitation measurements on this map of the west shows readings between 100 percent and 200 percent of normal for the last three months.

Colorado is doing nearly as well as California, as evidenced by the map below. (Source)


Sources found at The Water Report's snowpack research page.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:21 PM | Comments (0)

January 10, 2017

Ominous Foreshadowing of the Devastations of Climate Change

Three prestigious Colorado ski resorts are closed today.

As snow keeps falling along the Continental Divide and in Colorado's mountains... several ski resorts have had to close.

Seems strange, right?

But, it's true. Too much snow has actually made skiing and traveling conditions too dangerous

Save the sermons, I know this proves nothing. And, as a lukewarmer, I have little to prove.

But if they were closed for having no snow, I think the "Ominous Foreshadowing..." stories would be rolling

Posted by John Kranz at 5:08 PM | Comments (0)

January 6, 2017

Offshore From the Urban Heat Island

The next time someone questions the validity of the "urban heat island" effect, show them this post. The two graphs are last night's overnight temperature, at rural Atlantis Farm, and about 5 miles away in Brighton, CO.


Urban (KCOBRIGH41)

A roughly 14 degree F difference in low temperature. Bring on the urban sprawl!

Posted by JohnGalt at 12:16 PM | Comments (0)

December 6, 2016

#DAPL Me This... Vol III?

Chairman David Archambault, of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, continues to maintain that the most meticulously engineered and constructed oil pipeline to be routed eighty-odd feet below the Missouri riverbed poses a threat to that community's water supply. This, despite said water supply inlet being moved fifty miles further down river and feeding a brand new $30 million water treatment complex exclusively for the Standing Rock Sioux community.

"Just because the new intake is 70 miles away doesn't mean our water is still not threatened," said David Archambault, chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe.

The project, which has received little attention in the months-long fight over the Dakota Access pipeline, has been a goal for the Sioux for more than a decade. It was first funded in 2009.

The funding for the water works came from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - that's "The Stimulus Bill" for those who remember it. It was part of a $500 million dollar investment in projects specifically for the benefit of America's native tribal descendent populations.

As for the "threat" to the water, one begins to suspect the only solution the chairman and the climate activists will be pleased with is the "keep it in the ground" solution - No pipeline... No fracking... No oil for thankful and prosperous human customers. A Hoover Institution senior fellow has dubbed this the "Indian Energy Wars."

But the biggest foe for the Standing Rock Sioux is the federal government itself, entrusted with protecting Indians since Chief Justice John Marshall declared Indians "wards" of the state in 1832. After the first Indian Wars, the federal government signed treaties setting aside 43,000 square miles as the Great Sioux Nation. That territory would include much of the DAPL route. However, in 1889, it "repossessed" much of the territory opening it for white settlement and creating the private lands on which the pipeline will be built. Since then, the federal government has nothing to give Native Americans confidence in their trustee.

A paper by 3 Texas A&M political scientists, forthcoming in the Policies Studies Journal, shows how "paternalistic control over Indian nations" has failed to protect tribal water quality under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act supposedly enforced by the EPA. Comparing regulatory compliance and enforcement on and off reservation, they find 125 percent more management violations and 57 percent more health violations for tribal water utilities under.

American Indians have a right to be fearful that projects such as the DAPL could violate their rights to land and water, but their fear would be better focused on the "Great White Father."

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:06 PM | Comments (0)

November 23, 2016

Trump "softening" on climate change?

In case you were worried that President Elect Trump is already sinking in the swamp muck, don't.

JAMES BENNET, [NY Times] editorial page editor: When you say an open mind, you mean youíre just not sure whether human activity causes climate change? Do you think human activity is or isnít connected?

TRUMP: I think right now Ö well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much itís going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.

Theyíre really largely noncompetitive. About four weeks ago, I started adding a certain little sentence into a lot of my speeches, that weíve lost 70,000 factories since W. Bush. 70,000. When I first looked at the number, I said: ĎThat must be a typo. It canít be 70, you canít have 70,000, you wouldnít think you have 70,000 factories here.í And it wasnít a typo, itís right. Weíve lost 70,000 factories.

Weíre not a competitive nation with other nations anymore. We have to make ourselves competitive. Weíre not competitive for a lot of reasons.

Thatís becoming more and more of the reason. Because a lot of these countries that we do business with, they make deals with our president, or whoever, and then they donít adhere to the deals, you know that. And itís much less expensive for their companies to produce products. So Iím going to be studying that very hard, and I think I have a very big voice in it. And I think my voice is listened to, especially by people that donít believe in it. And weíll let you know.

FRIEDMAN: Iíd hate to see Royal Aberdeen underwater.

TRUMP: The North Sea, that could be, thatís a good one, right?

As for the big enchilada, the Paris Accord (the world's most expensive treaty, estimated to cost $1 trillion - $2 trillion per year) Trump remains cool.

SHEAR: Just one quick clarification on the climate change, do you intend to, as you said, pull out of the Paris Climate Ö

TRUMP: Iím going to take a look at it.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:07 PM | Comments (0)

November 16, 2016

If Elon Musk were in 'Atlas Shrugged'...

... he would be Oren Boyle.

It has been widely reported that among SolarCity, Tesla, and the rocket company SpaceX, Elon Musk's confederacy of interests has gotten at least $4.9 billion in taxpayer support over the past 10 years.

This is almost half of Musk's supposed net worth - taken from the pockets of American citizens and put into companies that can survive only by cannibalizing each other, spending without end, and promising that success is always just beyond the horizon and yet never arrives.

The American people are being taken on a ride by SolarCity, Tesla, and Musk. The ride is fueled by a cult of personality in Musk. And it costs billions of taxpayer dollars as he promises us not only the moon, but to harness the power of the sun and send us all to Mars.

In the cases of Enron and Bernie Madoff, in the end the cheated victims wished to have woken up sooner to the hubris that enabled such a downfall - or that at least regulators had pulled their heads out of the sand before the full impact of the collapse was realized.

We've seen this story before and we know how it ends.

But one of the good things about changing regimes in Washington D.C. is that cronies often get uprooted.

The Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee have launched a probe into tax incentives paid to solar companies, according to The Wall Street Journal. The committee probes, led by their respective Republican chairmen, Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, have found an appropriate and disturbing target to begin this work.

SolarCity, a solar installation company set to be purchased by Tesla Motors Inc., is one of the seven companies named in the initial investigation.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:50 PM | Comments (0)

November 15, 2016

"I will stop the unstoppable"

In what is reminiscent (to me, at least) of John Galt's "I will stop the motor of the world" President Elect Trump is not backing away from his campaign pledge to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Trump's advisers are considering ways to bypass a theoretical four-year procedure for leaving the accord, according to the source, who works on Trump's transition team for international energy and climate policy.

"It was reckless for the Paris agreement to enter into force before the election" on Tuesday, the source told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The Paris accord won enough backing for entry into force on Nov. 4, four days before the election.

"So where's the John Galt reference, johngalt?"

I'm projecting just a bit, in response to French President Hollande, who said the agreement is "irreversible." And to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon who said,

"What was once unthinkable has become unstoppable," Ban said at a news conference of the landmark Paris deal, agreed by almost 200 governments last year after two decades of tortuous negotiations. The accord formally entered into force on Nov. 4 after a record swift ratification.

A "record swift ratification."

The Trump source said the president-elect's transition team is aware of the likely international backlash but said Republicans in the U.S. Congress have given ample warning that a Republican administration would take action to reverse course.

"The Republican Party on multiple occasions has sent signals to the international community signaling that it doesn't agree with the pact. We've gone out of our way to give notice," the source said.

The source blamed Obama for joining up by an executive order, without getting approval from the U.S. Senate.

"There wouldn't be this diplomatic fallout on the broader international agenda if Obama hadn't rushed the adoption," the source said.

(What was the mood in Washington on November 4 that had the Administration so anxious to rush this through prior to Hillary's coronation? Hmmm.)

But former French President Nicholas Sarkozy has a warning for Trump if he doesn't stand by his predecessors promises.

Speaking to French broadcaster TF1, Sarkozy said late Sunday: "Donald Trump has said - we'll see if he keeps this promise -- that he won't respect the conclusions of the Paris climate agreement. Well, I will demand that Europe put in place a carbon tax at its border, a tax of 1-3 percent, for all products coming from the United States, if the United States doesn't apply environmental rules that we are imposing on our companies."

Whoa! Who's the trade warrior now?

Posted by JohnGalt at 1:47 PM | Comments (0)

October 25, 2016

All Hail Taranto!


Posted by John Kranz at 3:47 PM | Comments (0)

October 20, 2016

All Hail Taranto!


Posted by John Kranz at 6:39 PM | Comments (0)

October 18, 2016

Ford stock is up 37%!

I'm kidding about Ford equity, and have my grumpy-guy-who-has-been-disappointed-before dark glasses on. But does anyone doubt that this is what the solution to climate change will look like? Rather than some treaty signed in some foreign capital?

Scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee have discovered a chemical reaction to turn CO2 into ethanol, potentially creating a new technology to help avert climate change. Their findings were published in the journal ChemistrySelect.
The researchers were attempting to find a series of chemical reactions that could turn CO2 into a useful fuel, when they realized the first step in their process managed to do it all by itself. The reaction turns CO2 into ethanol, which could in turn be used to power generators and vehicles.

The Popular Mechanics article claims "The process is cheap, efficient, and scalable, meaning it could soon be used to remove large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere."

UPDATE: Tangentially related -- and totally awesome: Cartoon notes on Matt Ridley's speech.

Posted by John Kranz at 4:20 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

Thus sounding the political death-knell for ethanol as a motor vehicle fuel. Thanks Oak Ridge National Labs!

Posted by: johngalt at October 18, 2016 5:37 PM

August 23, 2016

All Hail Harsanyi

There are, no doubt, many good reasons a person might have for not wanting children. But, certainly, it's tragic that some gullible Americans who have the means and emotional bandwidth -- and perhaps a genuine desire -- to be parents avoid having kids because of a quasi-religious belief in apocalyptic climate change and overpopulation.

Then again, maybe this is just Darwinism working its magic. -- David Harsanyi

Posted by John Kranz at 10:23 AM | Comments (0)

June 15, 2016

Extinctified -- by your SUV!


Human-caused climate change appears to have driven the Great Barrier Reef's only endemic mammal species into the history books, with the Bramble Cay melomys, a small rodent that lives on a tiny island in the eastern Torres Strait, being completely wiped-out from its only known location.

It is also the first recorded extinction of a mammal anywhere in the world thought to be primarily due to human-caused climate change.

An expert says this extinction is likely just the tip of the iceberg, with climate change exerting increasing pressures on species everywhere.

Tiresome on stilts. We cannot truly pin down what portion of the small warming is outside of spec, what part of sea-level is apportioned to temperature. And -- I am not a biologist, but there is no way I accept certainty that this loss can be pinned on sea level rise.

I know you're already looking forward to Review Corner, just 'cause. But Sunday's How Not to be Wrong is a dive into misuse of statistics and faulty conclusions. I think The Guardian hit the trifecta on fallacies.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:18 PM | Comments (2)
But Keith Arnold thinks:

Wait a minute - these scientists were monitoring this population of Bramble Bay melomys, watched on as the ocean rose and killed them all, and did nothing? Nothing other that bitch to the newspapers, I mean?

Did it not occur to these science geniuses (genii?) to round them up and move them? Transport them to some sort of animal conservancy, where they could live out their lives is safety? THEY LEFT THEM TO DROWN?

As I thought in my head as I looked at your picture... "rat. Bastards... Rat bastards!"

Seriously, it didn't occur to any of them to take a couple of them home to save their lives? Is it that much more satisfying to them that they can say they whinged to the Powers That Be to no avail, instead of manning up and doing it themselves?

Posted by: Keith Arnold at June 15, 2016 2:47 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Pinpointing the extinction (or pseudoextinction) of a species requires a clear definition of that species. If it is to be declared extinct, the species in question must be uniquely distinguishable from any ancestor or daughter species, and from any other closely related species.

What is the uniquely distinguishable characteristic of this "mosaic-tailed rat?" A mosaic pattern on its tail? Come on, man!

As Wikipedia summarizes, isolated extinctions are quite common. And the source article (not linked in the post but available here) agrees, in its closing paragraph:

"Certainly, extinction and climatic change has gone hand in hand throughout the history of the world," he [John White, an ecologist from Deakin University in Australia, who was not involved in the study] said. "So, if this is one of the first, it is more than likely not going to be the last."

To which one should add, ... in the history of the world.

Posted by: johngalt at June 15, 2016 3:28 PM

June 8, 2016

Bloody Inconvenient, that!

Huh? What? An inconsistency or factual anomaly in VP Gore's Oscar-winning film?

One of the evidences used by Al Gore in his Oscar winning and vacuous work An Inconvenient Truth is the shrinking Lake Chad. Gore shows a series of four images of Lake Chad on page 116 of his book. The pictures show the lake shrinking from about 25,000 square kilometers in 1963 to about 1,500 square kilometers in 2001. While largely debunked here and elsewhere it is has been a used canary of climate change by others pushing the narrative
Well over a 100 years old, old news. In Winston Churchillís book The River War: An Account of the Reconquest of the Sudan, published in 1899 , Churchill specifically mentions Lake Chad. (This can be read for free online .) Following an account of a dust up between British and French forces in the small outpost of Fashoda in the Sudan, Churchill takes some time to describe how Northern and Central Africa was to be divided between the Europeans/Egyptians [...] and even Lake Chad, into which the Shari flows, appears to be leaking through some subterranean exit, and is rapidly changing from a lake into an immense swamp.

That 1897 Land Rover SUV emitted an unholy amount of hydrocarbons.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:33 AM | Comments (0)

June 2, 2016

Question Models' Authority

Feel free to read the headline in your best Eric Cartman voice.

Megan McArdle compares climate models to econometrics models. Very similar -- except one has been abandoned and one is accepted as gospel, capital-T truth.

They could make some pretty good guesses from that data, but when you built a model based on those guesses, it didn't work. So economists tweaked the models, and they still didn't work. More tweaking, more not working.

Eventually it became clear that there was no way to make them work given the current state of knowledge. In some sense the "data" being modeled was not pure economic data, but rather the opinions of the tweaking economists about what was going to happen in the future. It was more efficient just to ask them what they thought was going to happen. People still use models, of course, but only the unflappable true believers place great weight on their predictive ability.

This lesson from economics is essentially what the "lukewarmists" bring to discussions about climate change. They concede that all else equal, more carbon dioxide will cause the climate to warm. But, they say that warming is likely to be mild unless you use a model which assumes large positive feedback effects. Because climate scientists, like the macroeconomists, can't run experiments where they test one variable at a time, predictions of feedback effects involve a lot of theory and guesswork. I do not denigrate theory and guesswork; they are a vital part of advancing the sum of human knowledge. But when you're relying on theory and guesswork, you always want to leave plenty of room for the possibility that your model's output is (how shall I put this?) ... wrong.

McArdle links to a nine part series on Coyote Blog and compliments its seriousness and measured tone. I would say teh same for her piece.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:44 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

How did economists know that the econometric models "didn't work?"

And then the whole effort was basically abandoned, because the models failed to outperform mindless trend extrapolation -- or as Kevin Hassett once put it, "a ruler and a pencil."

The model predictions were able to be compared side-by-side to other predictions, and to observed reality. When that is attempted with climate models, and the model predictions are found lacking, we're told that the timescale isn't long enough. "We must wait longer to see the true predicted effect." But you can bet your Aunt Petunia that the timescale would be "long enough" if there were any agreement whatsoever between the models and the actual climate.

Posted by: johngalt at June 2, 2016 2:50 PM

May 23, 2016

Life Imitates ThreeSources

Brother JohnGalt called it right out of the chute: Paris Conference over -- climate change fixed! Next topic?

Seems even the Aussie Labour Party is in.

Aussie academic David Holmes, of the University of Melbourne, suggests that Politicians are using the Paris Agreement to defuse climate concerns, by claiming Paris "solved" the climate crisis -- and he's not happy about it.

Sorry, mate! Obama fixed that already. Now we can focus 100% on who pees where.

Posted by John Kranz at 6:46 PM | Comments (0)

Who Says There's No Good News?

AG drops climate change subpoena against libertarian think tank

The Virgin Islands attorney general has withdrawn a controversial subpoena against a prominent libertarian D.C. think tank, after being accused of bullying the group as part of a broader probe into whether ExxonMobil misled the public about global warming.

Attorney General Claude Walker had issued the subpoena, demanding the Competitive Enterprise Institute hand over 10 years' worth of its communications related to climate change, in April.

CEI fired back with a lawsuit of its own, seeking to fine Walker for what the group called a breach of their First Amendment rights.

Walker's office dropped the subpoena Friday, according to court documents. The office did not respond to a request for comment from

CEI said it would still seek sanctions against Walker -- noting that while this subpoena has been dropped, a more expansive subpoena against ExxonMobil still stands.

Posted by John Kranz at 5:20 PM | Comments (0)

April 22, 2016

Climate Change: What do Scientists Say?

Did somebody say Earth Day? Here is the latest scientific interpretation of the "Climate Disruption" caused by humans being healthy and prosperous. Hint: It's not all a matter of science.

Lindzen was a lead author of one of the chapters of the original IPCC report.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:24 PM | Comments (1)
But nanobrewer thinks:

Ahh, excellent pitch for PragerU: been meaning to go there for so long (just did). Lindzen is one of my favorite go-to guys, and one of the names I've memorized for my cocktail-party spiel of "name three prominent, published scientists..."

Posted by: nanobrewer at April 25, 2016 11:32 AM

April 15, 2016

Green Mafia in action

Perhaps I was wrong to fear most of all the unelected government?

Here, real law professor tells off the three would-be thugs who've finally taken the Exxon investigative "Lawfare" campaign in a big, bold and public move to criminalize free expression. I could have figured slimeball-activist types like Harris and Schneiderman would be at the front of this mob.... anybody else heard the joke that AG stands for "Aspiring Governor"?

Hah, co-named CEI is willing and able to fight back! Now, if we could just get a real constitutional expert elected, perhaps the illegality will be placed correctly?

Thank god for all of Reynolds' hard work that has landed him a spot regularly publishing editorials for USAToday, and let's hope PowerLine's Scott Johnson's prediction

It's a sign of the times, as is the silence that enshrouds the story.
becomes untrue.

Posted by nanobrewer at 12:34 PM | Comments (0)

April 11, 2016

Quote of the Day

My first reaction to this news was "Um, wut?" CEI has long denied humans' role in global warming, and I have fairly substantial disagreements with CEI on the issue. However, when last I checked, it was not a criminal matter to disagree with me. It's a pity, I grant you, but there it is; the law's the law. -- Megan McArdle
My first reaction was "The Virgin Islands has an Attorney General?"
Posted by John Kranz at 1:06 PM | Comments (0)

March 12, 2016

we can't let this guy go

Stories are abounding that Rubio's political career is over, if (which seems extremely likely) he ends up dropping his presidential bid. If the GOP is smart, they will not let a man of such obvious political talent go. Here Mike Ciandella of MRC's NewsBusters squad summarizes the way the GOP as a whole should avoid the 99/97% of scientists follow the consensus* slippery slope argument:

What thereís no consensus on is how much of the changes that are going on are due to human activity, in essence it's a sensitivity argument. ... these people pushing this are acting like itís some sort of a religious tenet they want us to admit.
and when
(Mario Cuomo's brother, btw) CUOMO: You get painted denier, though, senator.
RUBIO: Is the sea level rising? You can measure that. You can measure whether sea level is rising. That's not the question you should be asking a policymaker.

The question you should be asking a policymaker is: what can we do in government to affect the rise of sea levels? And the answer is ďoh, pass these laws we want you to pass.Ē So I asked the environmentalists and others who are supporting those laws, ďwell, how many inches of feet of sea level rise will that law prevent?Ē And there answer is, it won't prevent any.

Where can the GOP fit this guy that he can maintain the dignity to run again?

* stupendous review here of the 99% / 97% ruckus that gets toted around and used as either a club or a shield against rational discussion.

Posted by nanobrewer at 3:40 PM | Comments (2)
But jk thinks:

I like him and don't know that he is "over" with a loss. I would support his dropping out at any time to try to unite all the #nevertrump folk.

NR put up a nice video.

Posted by: jk at March 13, 2016 1:09 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

Agreed, and I consider it one of those over-top comments we're likely to hear from the Dick Morris' of the world... mainly repeating it to hope "it ain't so."

Posted by: nanobrewer at March 13, 2016 5:13 PM

February 11, 2016

Colorado to SCOTUS: F*** OFF!

That stunning stay limiting the EPA's power grab? CDPHE says "Not so much."

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court stayed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Power Plan, a rule designed to reduce nationwide emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants by about one-third. The stay is a temporary measure while the federal courts review the merits of the rule.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has been working since last summer to develop a state plan to achieve the Clean Power Plan's carbon reduction targets for Colorado. The department will continue to coordinate with stakeholders to develop this state plan during the litigation. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear oral arguments on the rule in June.

I rarely stunned by governmental arrogance, but this strikes me as stunning. I got this from Amy Oliver's Facebook page -- are we missing something?

Posted by John Kranz at 11:05 AM | Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:

Colorado bureaucrats wasted little time getting this statement out after Tuesday's ruling. What are they afraid of? That their acolytes and sycophants might spook? Rarely does one witness such swiftness of action in government!

I'd like to offer my translation, paragraph by paragraph...

Yesterday a partisan majority of the Supreme Court overreacted and overreached to delay and discredit a noble act of our historic president.

Colorado bureaucrats and self-loathing environmentalists eagerly embarked on their mission to strangle efficient and economical energy production in our state, and won't let this legal technicality slow us down.

We're going to whistle as we walk past this graveyard because we can't bear considering the possible, or even likely, demise of our grandiose plan to make "alternative" energy the only kind available.

We and our partners in the fledgling alternative energy industry have already concocted a cover story for our goal that passes the giggle test. We're going to rush back to our smoke-filled room and try to find a way to get even with those racist troglodytes on the Supreme Court, and keep our plan alive.

Man-caused climate change is REAL! Science has settled that political question. We will never stop using that or any other excuse to transition to our favorite energy sources at any cost to citizens. And we'll use this excuse to further our other egalitarian utopia interests too. Rejoice, comrades!

No, we're not missing anything. SS. DD.

Posted by: johngalt at February 11, 2016 3:11 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Okay, we did miss one thing: The response of Colorado's senate Republicans.

Senator John Cooke (R-Weld County) called the stay "a great victory for Colorado ratepayers and the rule of law. This US Supreme Court decision should send a strong message to the Governor not to force Colorado working families into an expensive, likely unconstitutional EPA plan that will cost Coloradans thousands of jobs."

Senator Jerry Sonnenberg (R-Sterling) said he is very surprised by the White House and CDPHE statements defying the Supreme Court ruling. "Today the CDPHE said it is ignoring the stay and proceeding to implement the CPP. That is unacceptable, and Governor Hickenlooper needs to explain why his administration is not complying with the federal court order," said Sonnenberg.

Posted by: johngalt at February 11, 2016 7:04 PM

February 9, 2016

We're From the Government

... and we're here to help!

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a regulation to prohibit conversion of vehicles originally designed for on-road use into racecars. The regulation would also make the sale of certain products for use on such vehicles illegal. The proposed regulation was contained within a non-related proposed regulation entitled "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--Phase 2."

Ah yes, the CO2 emissions from the drag strip. Killing Mama Gaia.

Posted by John Kranz at 5:28 PM | Comments (3)
But Keith Arnold thinks:

So much for my plans to take that Checker Marathon cab to the Demolition Derby. The government just hates me having fun.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at February 9, 2016 5:50 PM
But johngalt thinks:

"If it stops even a single knuckle-dragger from having fun, really, isn't it worth it?"

Posted by: johngalt at February 9, 2016 6:41 PM
But jk thinks:

Is it sporting to take a Checker to a Demolition Derby? Strikes me as worse than juicing at Le Tour de France.

Posted by: jk at February 9, 2016 7:06 PM

January 27, 2016

Make a Difference

Sad news from the WhatsUpWithThat Facebook Page:

Just an FYI to everyone.

I have decided to close down this Facebook page. It was started by somebody else other than me, but given my workload, I am not able to maintain it. This year my New Year's resolution is to consolidate and simplify, so that I am more effective instead of being scattered about. So, at the end of the week, this page will be gone. I may reactivate it someday if time permits.
The WUWT main page will continue, as always.

If anyone has suggestions, on how I might minimize my workload so that this FB page does not add to it, I'm all ears.

Thanks for understanding - Anthony Watts

I'm in some Facebook groups with some very restrictive admins. We could volunteer to administer the site (9882 Likes), posting from his main page and managing the trolls.

I go back and forth whether that would be fun, but it is a chance to have some reach and audience. Maybe the Koch brothers would send us free doughnuts...

Posted by John Kranz at 5:57 PM | Comments (1)
But nanobrewer thinks:

I'd lend a hand!

Posted by: nanobrewer at January 27, 2016 11:04 PM

December 15, 2015

A Lukewarmer's Elevator Talk

Of course, all the environmentally responsible interlocutors have taken the stairs...

But grade me on this: short & sweet.

I'm not saying that man is not contributing to climate change; I am saying that the problem is likely not catastrophic, and certainly not in the near term. In fact, I think we could study the problem for ten years, spend ten years assembling a plan, and then spend ten years implementing the plan.

The year 2045 is a flicker of time away in geological terms -- even aggressive models target the later half of this century -- yet it is a galaxy far far away on both an economic and technology scale. In 2045, we will attack the problem with a wealth at least double ours and with computing power and physical knowledge that we cannot even begin to imagine or extrapolate.

If it proves worse, we can elect to accelerate that plan on well-grounded information. But to address it at our tech level and GDP is like asking Admiral Nelson's Navy to plan a moon shot.

Posted by John Kranz at 1:12 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

"Like." 3.5 stars. Would have given it the last half a star if you'd said something about private sector vs. government solutions.

Posted by: johngalt at December 15, 2015 1:35 PM

December 9, 2015

Mark Steyn vs. Congress

Hat-tip: WUWT

Posted by John Kranz at 2:43 PM | Comments (4)
But jk thinks:

I just love to hear him say "Rear Admiral Titley." Even if you don't agree with him, it's grand.

Posted by: jk at December 9, 2015 2:46 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

Oh, I'll call professor Little Mann nearly any name I can find in any book (and I won't be choosy), but I need to understand it before use. What/who/where is that supposed to refer to, or it is just an artistic rendering of "big poopy head?"

Posted by: nanobrewer at December 10, 2015 12:20 AM
But nanobrewer thinks:

OK, to contribute to the sharing of facts, I can now state that the "Rear Admiral" to whom Mark refers is actually, Dr. David Titley, who was a naval officer for 32 years, studied Meteorology all the way back to his undergrad at Penn St. and thereby would otherwise seemingly command respect.

1. Mark Steyn calling him a joke means more to me than this MS & PhD titles (and the lessons of Bill Nye and N.G. Tyson still being oh so fresh):

2. Having a title like this:

Fellow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Seminar XXI on Foreign Politics, International Relations, and National Interest
sets off all sorts of red flags in my head (you were a fellow at, or for, a Seminar?!?)

Posted by: nanobrewer at December 10, 2015 1:57 PM
But johngalt thinks:

And if you DO agree with him, it is well beyond grand.

What does it mean to call for "the politicking to stop?" Does that mean we will only examine the issue scientifically from now on?" Gee, that'd be nice.

Instead, what they actually want is for the politics to BEGIN. In the form of policies, and restrictions, and controls, and redistributions. All in the realm of politics, of course.

The only thing they want to see come to a stop is any political OPPOSITION.

Posted by: johngalt at December 10, 2015 4:19 PM

Quote of the Day

To reach this developing world level of CO2 emissions, Mr. Sanders would: impose an unspecified carbon tax; ban all offshore drilling and fossil-fuel leases on federal lands; stop "dirty pipeline" projects; ban natural gas and oil exports; force states to ban fracking; ban mountaintop coal mining; impose a new fuel-efficiency standard of 65 miles per gallon by 2025; spend "massive" federal dollars on subsidies for wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels, home-efficiency programs and energy storage; federally underwrite electric-car charging stations, high-speed passenger and cargo rail, a smart grid, and clean-energy job training; shut down the nuclear industry; and provide "clean energy funding" to the rest of the world.

Mr. Sanders doesn't include the cost of all this, for obvious political reasons, yet give him points for honesty. -- WSJ Ed Page

Posted by John Kranz at 11:15 AM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

Yes we can!


President Obama was a piker, with too little imagination.

Posted by: johngalt at December 9, 2015 11:58 AM

December 7, 2015

Un Coup? Non, merci!

The non-news from Paris' conference of the uber-rich last week should be taken as a positive. The 11/13 terrorist attacks certainly stole some thunder, but I think even the private jet-set are starting to notice the lack of any common touch to their message:
- those trying to hype DAWG are losing the narrative to real world events, as noted in the image, which I got from the UN 'MY World' Survey, where DAWG is last by a long shot amongst other concerns. Even the 470k respondents from "High HDI" countries can only bring DAWG up to 10th place.


I found the survey via the wonderfully prolific Matt Ridley's post on the Green Blob (which I much prefer to the Green Mob). If I were much smarter, I would have started my realist campaign by first noting good things happening in today's world, like ideas having sex. With that background I could say things like putting the interests of rich peopleís grandchildren ahead of those of poor people today not only with a smile, but able to put a smile on others' faces! Lastly, I could offer such powerful truths as:

look at the policies enacted in the name of mitigating climate change. Weíve diverted 40 per cent of Americaís maize crop to feeding cars instead of people, thus driving up the price of food worldwide, a move which according to one study killed about 192,000 poor people in 2010 alone, and continues to affect nutrition worldwide. Weíve restricted aid funding for fossil-fuelled power stations in developing countries, leaving many people who would otherwise have had access to electricity mired in darkness and cooking over wood-fires ó the biggest environmental cause of ill health, responsible for more than three million deaths every year.

Nice rejoinder to the WHO report supposing a quarter million climate deaths per annum. According to Daily Beast, that alarmism wasn't alarming enough to the alarmists, so they upped the ante to nearly 1/2 million in what the DB's author calls, probably without irony, "path breaking."

Another sign, again old news, is how they feel the need, as quoted in the Washington Times:

Chris Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who was also listed in the complaint [to ban skeptics], said in an email that the climate-change movementís recent efforts ďprove they know they canít persuade the public if there are voices to challenge the media cheerleading.Ē

Posted by nanobrewer at 3:21 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

Q - Why do politicians almost universally promise better education, healthcare, and job opportunities?

A - To distract voters from their untenable priority - an honest and responsive government.

Look at the things that the citizens of the world hold less important than "an honest and responsive government:"

Affordable food
Clean water
Gender equality
Environmental protection
Last and certainly least, Climate Action.

This can't be a result of those things being less important to people than a structural condition like "honest government." Rather, it is evidence that most of the citizens of the world already have enough of those other things. "Fix my problems - those aren't problems" they seem to be saying.

Posted by: johngalt at December 7, 2015 4:26 PM

December 4, 2015

All Hail Harsanyi!

(Side note, David Harsanyi has picked up a partisan edge writing for The Federalist. I wonder if that causes friction at Reason?)

But today he is there and all the way live:

What do you call it when elites fly their private jets to an international climate change conference to forge a deal with despots that caps American prosperity without our consent? You call it progressivism.

It's estimated that 50,000 carbon-spewing humans participated in the Paris climate conference. But while President Barack Obama was taking his working dinner at the three-Michelin-star L'Ambroisie, public protesters were banned from protesting in the aftermath of the Islamic terror attacks. Liberté? Not so much.

Posted by John Kranz at 1:46 PM | Comments (0)

December 1, 2015

Go along to be "credible"

Did anyone else see this? I heard him say it live, this morning. Or at least, his lips were moving and these were the sounds I heard.

It's not merely that "99.5% of scientists" say that global climate science is "real" and "serious" [up from a steady 97 percent for the last two decades or so] but more importantly, the President says, "also 99% of world leaders."

"It spans political parties," he continued. "You travel around Europe and you talk to leaders of governments and the opposition, and they are arguing about a whole bunch of things. One thing they're not arguing about is whether the science of climate change is real and whether or not we have to do something about it."


"I think the president of the United States is going to need to think this is really important," Obama said. "Your credibility and America's ability to influence events depends on taking seriously what other countries care about."

So in order to be "credible" and in order to influence events, one must accept a tenuous theory assembled upon a mountain of dubious or downright fraudulent data, and be willing to act against the interests of American citizens to prove that he "takes seriously what other countries care about?"

Is he as stupid as he thinks we are? He really does take this "lead from behind" a.k.a. "follow" strategy seriously. No credibility gap there.

As for that 99% consensus of world leaders, meet MP Tim Yeo.

In 2009 Yeo said: "The dying gasps of the deniers [sic] will be put to bed. In five years' 
time no-one will argue about a man-made contribution to climate change." Now, four years later, he is saying: "Although I think the evidence that the climate is changing is now overwhelming, the causes are 
not absolutely clear. There could be natural causes, natural phases that are taking place." Within the Anthropogenic Global Warming hierarchy, that retraction is broadly akin to Richard Dawkins joining the Cistercian Order.

And MP David Davies:

ďIt was warmer during the Roman Period, a fact that is acknowledged by the IPCCÖ. It got cooler during the Dark Ages. It then got warmer during the Medieval Period. And then it became much colder until about 1800,Ē says Davies,

I could go on.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:34 PM | Comments (2)
But nanobrewer thinks:

Yes, of course he did. I have lost the ability to be shocked at POTUS: If you cross a red line, you won't loose your doctor to the most transparent, shovel-ready, non-surveilling administration EVAH!

Posted by: nanobrewer at December 2, 2015 12:15 AM
But nanobrewer thinks:

Even uber-liberal columnist Richard Cohen has given up:

He is out of words because he is out of ideas. Consequently, he ought to listen to others. They’re not the ones who are popping off. He is.

It is said 'it took a Carter to get us a Reagan.' Let's hope that this example holds and the blessings God has laid at the USofA's feet keep coming. I'm reminded of something George Will (or Dr. K) said: oh, to be part a country who got J.Adams at our 1st constitutional crisis (France got Robespierre), and in our 2nd constitutional crisis were granted a Lincoln (whereas France got Napoleon III).

Posted by: nanobrewer at December 2, 2015 12:10 PM

November 19, 2015

Quote of the Day

"Global surface temperature has risen about 0.8°C in the last 125 years. The surface temperature you experience will rise, on average, that much if you drive 150 miles south. Raleigh, North Carolina, does not typically send terrorists to Washington." -- Patrick J. Michaels and Christopher A. Preble @ Cato
Posted by John Kranz at 6:16 PM | Comments (0)

November 16, 2015

Bill Nye, Science Scold

ThreeSourcers will find a gooberload of things with which to disagree in this article: "Bill Nye the Science Guy Knows How to Fix Climate Change."

Yet I encourage you to read it. It's superb and serious. He lacks economic judgement. And he would not know liberty if it bit him in the ass. But he is a serious guy: obviously a true believer. And he presents some arguments taht you'll hear from much less reasonable sources.

Posted by John Kranz at 7:02 PM | Comments (3)
But johngalt thinks:

I know how to "fix" Climate Change too. Just read Michael Chrichton novels!

Maybe if I were bored but you'll need to do better than "he presents some arguments that you'll hear from much less reasonable sources." Isn't that like, "he repeats claims by others even more idiotic than himself?"

Posted by: johngalt at November 16, 2015 7:51 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

In my little world, he's known as Nye the Lyin' guy... this little episode bears repeating and re-posting.

As to his latest Lovins-rambling, deep thoughts:

The example I give everybody is of a guy who claims he is able to walk on fire because of his spiritual preparedness. It is really science, though. But the first time I show him this he’s not going to be convinced. He’s going to be in denial about it. But after a few months or a couple years of reminding him that this is just science, I predict he will change his mind. In the same way, by continually chipping away at the science of climate change, the deniers will change their minds.

Science... like psychology or astrology? This is a fave:

We could do this again. By ‚Äúwe,‚ÄĚ I mean the people of the world

Posted by: nanobrewer at November 16, 2015 11:55 PM
But jk thinks:

Not feelin' the love. Just not feelin' it.

That's fair. Neil de Grasse Tyson drives me mad. I find it hard to enjoy even his pro-GMO rants because he is such an arrogant putz. I suppose Nye is not better, yet I encounter him less frequently.

Posted by: jk at November 17, 2015 10:12 AM

November 10, 2015

They do not exaggerate!


Happy now denialists???

Posted by John Kranz at 4:04 PM | Comments (2)
But nanobrewer thinks:

This man truly has a dizzying intellect:

Yet a warning should occur when these stars align and we find ourselves feeling self-righteous about a belief that apparently means more to us than the preservation of good standards of evidence.

Stars? Is this climatology, astronomy or astrology?

Within the dark recesses of confirmation bias, an entire field of academic inquiry (behavioral economics) now proposes to explain whole swaths of human behavior based on such mental foibles.

He should know; this is full of them!! But this is my favorite:

So how to tell a fact from an opinion? By the time we sit down to evaluate the evidence for a scientific theory, it is probably too late.

That's right; don't wait, don't evaluate, don't think - just believe!! Interestingly, the comments section has a pretty even split of "skeptics" vs. "believers" (a term coined by one commentator).

Posted by: nanobrewer at November 11, 2015 12:49 AM
But johngalt thinks:

Ah yes, John Oliver, the world-renowned stand-up comedian of epistemology!

Does human activity change the climate?
Do owls exist?
Does God look like Charleton Heston or Rae Dawn Chong?

I could only muster a strong enough intellectual curiosity to read the first paragraph. I added in the last paragraph, just in pursuit of fairness.

Read this and ask yourself, who is really "denying" something, and what is it?

True skepticism must be more than an ideological reflex; skepticism must be earned by a prudent and consistent disposition to be convinced only by evidence. When we cynically pretend to withhold belief long past the point at which ample evidence should have convinced us that something is true, we have stumbled past skepticism and landed in the realm of willful ignorance. This is not the realm of science, but of ideological crackpots.

Denialist, heal thyself.

Posted by: johngalt at November 11, 2015 4:02 PM

November 6, 2015

Climate Politics

Not to be confused with climate science.

On October 13, the Republican chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee subpoenaed NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan.:

"It was inconvenient for this administration that climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades," Smith said in a statement. "The American people have every right to be suspicious when NOAA alters data to get the politically correct results they want and then refuses to reveal how those decisions were made. NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration's extreme climate change agenda." [emphasis mine]

At issue are "documents stemming from deliberative scientific discussions that took place before the study's end product was final," that were deliberately withheld according to NOAA spokesman Ciaran Clayton.

"We have provided data (all of which is publicly available online), supporting scientific research, and multiple in person briefings. We stand behind our scientists who conduct their work in an objective manner. ÖWe have provided all of the information the committee needs to understand this issue."

Do legal defendants get to decide when the prosecutor has enough information to "understand this issue?"

Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil is under a broad subpoena of records over the past ten years by the New York Attorney General for investigation of lying to the public about the risks of climate change.

No, this is not a joke. I have not made any of this up for comedic effect.


Related - Hillary "Clinton said last week that the Department of Justice should investigate ExxonMobil for allegedly withholding data related to climate change, saying that there is "a lot of evidence they misled people."

Completely UN-related (OBviously) - "USA TODAY has confirmed that sponsors from 2014 that have backed out for this year include electronics company Samsung, oil giant ExxonMobil, ..."

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:05 PM | Comments (2)
But nanobrewer thinks:

I saw this on PowerLine, with the comment that really frosted me: where the NOAA director declined the subpoena citing: "integrity of the scientific process"

Since when does science hide data and processes? Because Barack Obama, that's when!

Posted by: nanobrewer at November 6, 2015 4:53 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

Nyuuupe; it was National Review with the excellent title: The Calcification of Climate Science.

The issue is the director of NOAA's NCEI center, Thomas R. Karl wrote a short paper to Science refuting "The Pause" in warming, apparently, once again, by adjusting past data in another effort to hide the pause.

The full quote is from an article in The Hill:

confidentiality concerns and the integrity of the scientific process

Posted by: nanobrewer at November 6, 2015 5:53 PM

October 26, 2015

Bill Gates: Only Socialism can save the planet!

Not sure how accurate this quote from US Uncut is. But it, sadly, has verisimilitude.

In a recent interview with The Atlantic, billionaire tech magnate Bill Gates announced his game plan to spend $2 billion of his own wealth on green energy investments, and called on his fellow private sector billionaires to help make the U.S. fossil-free by 2050. But in doing so, Gates admitted that the private sector is too selfish and inefficient to do the work on its own, and that mitigating climate change would be impossible without the help of government research and development.

I'm thinking about a Mac... To be fair, the headline is US Uncut's and "help of government R&D" is not really "Socialism." But my Facebook friends are elated.

Posted by John Kranz at 5:13 PM | Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:

Back that truck up - Gates will spend $2Bn of his own wealth, on green investments, and call on his fellow private sector billionaires to (do the same?) and make the U.S. fossil-[fuel] free by 2050...

Next sentence:

"Gates admitted that the private sector (i.e. himself and his fellow PRIVATE SECTOR billionaires) is too selfish and inefficient to do the work on its own..."

Maybe they're just too smart to pour good money down that sunny, windy hole?

Maybe Bill is saying, "If you don't give your money to my pet project I'll get the government to take it from you."

Naah... Rainbows! Lollipops!

Posted by: johngalt at October 27, 2015 2:38 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

He's been a reliably lefty, in the most visibly public way possible, ever since the Clinton administration blew millions out of MS's legal fund with that set of harrassment suits (test the theory: what changed?).

This of course the point of the actions of the Clinton's IMO; much more so than anything to do with monopolies!

He's keeping the voices behind the pitchforks pointed at others....

Posted by: nanobrewer at November 2, 2015 12:53 PM

October 22, 2015

Quote of the Day

In the run-up to the 2015 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11, rich countries and development organizations are scrambling to join the fashionable ranks of "climate aid" donors. This effectively means telling the world's worst-off people, suffering from tuberculosis, malaria or malnutrition, that what they really need isnít medicine, mosquito nets or micronutrients, but a solar panel. It is terrible news. -- HOSS Bjorn Lomborg, WSJ Guest Editorial
Posted by John Kranz at 11:39 AM | Comments (0)

October 14, 2015

Eco Ruh Roh

An "unfortunate truth" happened on the way to proving anthropogenic global warming "believers" are more likely to take actions to mitigate wildfire in the UFI (urban-forest interface) - scientists proved the opposite.

Respondents in the study were placed on a continuum from 'believer' to 'skeptic' based on their attitudes about the degree to which climate change affects wildfire risk in Colorado. Although over half of the study respondents agreed that climate change has increased wildfire risk in the state, those respondents were not necessarily more likely to take action on their private property to mitigate potential damage from future blazes.

The researchers did, however, find a correlation between climate change denial and risk mitigation actions.

"A small but distinct portion of respondents who reject climate science as a 'hoax' are also the ones who reported doing significantly more risk mitigation activities than other respondents," said Hannah Brenkert-Smith, a research associate in the Institute of Behavioral Sciences at CU-Boulder and lead author of the study.

The findings suggest that attitudes and actions related to climate change and risk mitigation are more nuanced than they are often portrayed in the media, and that focusing on locally relevant hazards may be a more useful tool for educating and galvanizing residents in fire-prone areas of Colorado.

"The conventional wisdom that a belief about climate change is a pre-requisite for mitigating local climate change impacts was not found in this analysis," said study co-author Patricia Champ of the U.S. Forest Service's Rocky Mountain Research Station. "This was a bit of a surprise."

Raise your hand if you're surprised.

I'm proud of my alma mater for publishing this study report, showing that their "conventional wisdom" is anything but.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:52 PM | Comments (3)
But jk thinks:

Sacre bleu!

Posted by: jk at October 14, 2015 5:11 PM
But Keith Arnold thinks:

I also caught the story about the French weatherman. Proof positive that Dylan was right: you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Or to quote a famous fictional French character who understood the connection between weather and political expediency: "I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy."

Posted by: Keith Arnold at October 14, 2015 5:55 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Did anyone else catch the other curiosity from the CU paper?

Respondents in the study were placed on a continuum from 'believer' to 'skeptic' ...

We've been media-conditioned to react to the 'skeptic' negatively. But as we learned from UC Berkeley yesterday, science relies on a balance between skepticism and openness to new ideas." And do the supposedly scientific-minded warmists, who disparage religionists, really want to be known as 'believers?'

Posted by: johngalt at October 14, 2015 6:28 PM

October 12, 2015

'Climate Wars' destroying Science

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but cannot ever enough praise or repeat Matt Ridley (5th Viscount Ridley, DL, FRSL, FMedSci).

insist that there are only two ways of thinking about climate changeóthat itís real, man-made and dangerous (the right way), or that itís not happening (the wrong way). But this is a false dichotomy. There is a third possibility: that itís real, partly man-made and not dangerous. This is the ďlukewarmerĒ school, and I am happy to put myself in this category.

Here is a long article, but worth reading, and is probably more manifesto than primer for the lukewarmer school of thought. He relates broadly and deeply the worst ravages on the scientific of the warmatista's:
the 97 % canard (a card relentlessly played in front Sen. Cruz not long ago), noting

A more recent poll of 1854 members of the American Meteorological Society found the true number is 52 per cent.
the many adjustments to raw temperature data (always in one direction), and the awful witch hunts for the truthtellers being trammeled by the bought-out and big NGO moneyed interests.

I like his breezy run through of Lysenkoism and the low-fat fiasco, and the pitching of reasonable books like Climate Change: The Facts.

He cites old slimies, like Lewandowsky, Pachauri and Phil Jones:

ďBottom line: the Ďno upward trendí has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.Ē
and new friends and scholars like Jennifer Marohasy, fellow zoologist Susan Crockford who exposed the polar bear alarmism,and Garth Paltridge:
We have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problemóor, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problemóin its effort to promote the cause.

All in all, an excellent and even witty read.

Posted by nanobrewer at 12:18 AM | Comments (7)
But johngalt thinks:

At least he didn't try to use "codpieced" in a sentence.

Posted by: johngalt at October 12, 2015 6:31 PM
But jk thinks:

Bob's Your Uncle, old chap!

Very very good article and a perfect dovetail for Mark Steyn's A Disgrace to the Profession.

Posted by: jk at October 12, 2015 7:08 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

In fact when Ridley mentioned _The Facts_ I mistakenly thought he was referring to Steyn's book.

Posted by: nanobrewer at October 13, 2015 11:03 AM
But johngalt thinks:

I think I mused about the harm that the Warmistmongering is doing to the scientific profession some years ago on these pages, although an evidentiary link eludes me at the moment.

Let's compare "today's climate science" according to Ridley with several of the 7 "aspects of the nature of science" according to the Understanding Science team at Cal Berkeley:

Today's climate science, as Ian Plimer points out in his chapter in The Facts, is based on a "pre-ordained conclusion, huge bodies of evidence are ignored and analytical procedures are treated as evidence". Funds are not available to investigate alternative theories. Those who express even the mildest doubts about dangerous climate change are ostracised, accused of being in the pay of fossil-fuel interests or starved of funds; those who take money from green pressure groups and make wildly exaggerated statements are showered with rewards and treated by the media as neutral. [emphasis mine]

But the academically correct nature of science requires that:

‚ÄĘScientists actively seek evidence to test their ideas ‚ÄĒ even if the test is difficult. They strive to describe and perform the tests that would prove their ideas wrong and/or allow others to do so.

‚ÄĘScientists take into account all the available evidence when deciding whether to accept an idea or not ‚ÄĒ even if that means giving up a favorite hypothesis.

‚ÄĘScience relies on a balance between skepticism and openness to new ideas.

Does the Berkeley 'Understanding Science Team' really mean to suggest that a truly scientific person exhibits *gasp* skepticism?

Yes. Yes, I think they do. That is the science I was taught, anyway.

And "today's climate science" sure seems to have more in common with the so-called "cold fusion" junk science than the time honored tradition of objective science.

Posted by: johngalt at October 13, 2015 2:50 PM
But jk thinks:

Koch Brothers shills, all of you! (Hey, do you like the new envelopes the checks come in? I thought it looked pretty cool but the lovely bride said that hers was difficult to open.)

Posted by: jk at October 13, 2015 6:53 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Luddites. Mine is direct deposit.

Posted by: johngalt at October 13, 2015 6:56 PM

October 9, 2015

The birth of other-loathing

Perhaps it's a re-birth, I'm not sure. Has there been another period in history when an anti-humanity movement was so large and so popular? The Dark Ages perhaps.

Yesterday I was asked by a colleague, "Why don't we use more nuclear power?"

"Honestly" said I, "I think it is because there is such a powerful movement to limit the available resources in order to limit the growth and prosperity of the human race."

That movement is called "global environmentalism" and, according to its Amazon summary, the book that launched the movement is called 'Limits to Growth' - Donella H. Meadows, October 1, 1972.

The headline-making report on the imminent global disaster facing humanity - and what we can do about it before time runs out. The book that launched the environmental movement globally.

First on the list of prescriptions, as explained in an editorial review of "The 30-Year Update" version, is fewer people, doing less.

The authors demonstrate that the most critical areas needing immediate attention are: population; wasteful, inefficient growth; and pollution. They show how attention to all three simultaneously can result in returning the human footprint on the environment to manageable, sustainable size, while sharply reducing the disparity between human well-being and fostering a generous quality-of-life worldwide. Absent this, the prospects are grim indeed.

How grim? RCP's William Tucker explains in 'Dealing With Abundance.'

In fact we're doing quite well as far as resources are concerned. Nobody talks about "running out of anything" anymore. The one place where doomsayers would argue that we have overshot is in the creation of carbon dioxide byproducts in the atmosphere that are going to lead to global warming.


While this is a matter of concern, once again it is not out of the reach of our technology. Glenn Seaborg, one of the pioneers of nuclear energy, used to say that "nuclear power has come along at exactly the right time because we were beginning to reach the limits of fossil fuels." He was talking both about the problem of supplies and the pollution effects of these technologies but he could have been talking about global warming as well.

So the choice is apparent: Is the path to "a generous quality of life worldwide" in the direction of science, technology, and safe, non-polluting and nearly limitless nuclear power, or through "disfiguring the entire face of the earth with low-density energy collectors such as windmills and solar panels?"

The answer depends on your bias. Do you want to limit the population, or make it prosperous? Do you love and respect yourself, and therefore others, or do you loathe successful people because, deep inside, your self-image is that of a dirty little beast?

Are you a man, or a mediocrity?

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:21 PM | Comments (4)
But Jk thinks:

I was just a pup in '72, but I really remember Fitzpatrick Sale's Human Scale. Everybody I knew bought into that. Most still do.

Posted by: Jk at October 9, 2015 4:18 PM
But Jk thinks:

Solutions are extant. (Ht insty)

Posted by: Jk at October 9, 2015 4:22 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

I wasn't alive back before the roaring 20's, but I'll nominate the eugenics movement that peaked (in America) with the bankrolling (by Carnegie, Rockefeller and Harriman) of Sanger's American Birth Control League in 1921 which was supported by AG Bell, POTUS/28 (Wilson), and by a supreme court justice I can't find (Holmes?).

Three acts are cited by Wiki:
1. Sterilization in Indiana (1907)
2. "AN ACT to authorize and provide for the sterilization of feeble-minded (including idiots, imbeciles and morons), epileptics, rapists, certain criminals and other defectives" (NJ, 1911; signed by Gov. W. Wilson and overturned in 1913)
3. Racial Integrity Act of 1924 (VA)

Fitter Family and Better Baby contests were held by the Red Cross. By the mid-30's Nazi Germany were sterilizing 5000/month. California led the US in forced sterilization....

A 1937 Fortune magazine poll found that 2/3 of respondents supported eugenic sterilization of "mental defectives", 63% supported sterilization of criminals, and only 15% opposed both.

Posted by: nanobrewer at October 10, 2015 2:28 AM
But jk thinks:

Justice Holmes famously said "Three generations of imbeciles are enough" in Buck v Bell.

Yet, Buck v Bell never seems to find its way into teh infamous list as frequently as Dred Scott, Plessy, or Korematsu.

Posted by: jk at October 10, 2015 7:25 PM

October 2, 2015

92% is the new 97%

Fantastic article from the ever-reliable Watts Up With That website (THE go-to place for Climate realism).

An analysis of the U.S. Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) shows that only about 8%-1% (depending on the stage of processing) of the data survives in the climate record as unaltered/estimated data.
is the subtitle.
Author John Goetz carefully navigates a complex web of acronyms USHCN, GHCN, GISS, TOB, NOAA/NCDC (now NCEI) .... and thoroughly examines the ways that data has been adjusted, backfilled, estimated, extrapolated and how
that the U.S. Climate Reference Network, designed from the start to be free of the need for ANY adjustment of data, does not show any trend
NOAA/NCDC (now NCEI) never let this USCRN data see the light of day in a public press release or a State of the Climate report for media consumption, it is relegated to a backroom of their website mission and never mentioned.

I've got a long list of sites (each study is nearly as complex as this one) in a separate folder called "hide the data." Australia, Maine, New Zealand, Paraguy.... to polar bears and ice caps.

This image is the best summary I've found: all the warming is from "models" and now we see that all the past warming is from fudging...


Posted by nanobrewer at 1:43 PM | Comments (2)
But nanobrewer thinks:

This article as revisits the famous bet between Julian Simon (HOSS-Statistics) and Paul Ehrlich (Phoney - Stanford).

The comments from both this and the WUWT articles are very interesting. The "warmers" who show up are mostly respectful, but robustly doctrinaire and studiously distanced from real data or analysis.

Posted by: nanobrewer at October 2, 2015 2:11 PM
But jk thinks:

Pre-review corner: I ended up reading Mark Steyn's A Disgrace to the Profession this weekend. Steyn collects 100 quotes from prestigious scientists -- most of who are climate change true believers -- discrediting Dr. Michael Mann and his "hockey stick" graph.

Strangely compelling. I got the Kindle sample to kill some time thinking I would just read a few. But, it's pretty difficult to put down. As noted by many of the quoted scientists, the chicanery and heavy-handed politics have badly discredited the branch.

Posted by: jk at October 5, 2015 9:35 AM

Happy Friday!


Hat-tip: Reason

Posted by John Kranz at 10:57 AM | Comments (0)

September 8, 2015

Quote of the Day

That last phrase is a tell. Have you noticed journalists never need to tell you "there is overwhelming scientific evidence" when there actually is? -- James Taranto
Posted by John Kranz at 7:18 PM | Comments (0)

September 3, 2015

Headline of the Day

Trillions and Trillions of Trees make that 'giant sucking sound' of CO2 from the atmosphere.
It seems it would matter to responsible climate models if the number of trees were discovered to be oh, say, eight times the previous estimate.

Too bad the science is settled -- this would seem an interesting datum.

Posted by John Kranz at 5:02 PM | Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:
"We've nearly halved the number of trees on the planet, and we've seen the impacts on climate and human health as a result," Crowther said. "This study highlights how much more effort is needed if we are to restore healthy forests worldwide."

So all we really need to do to counter the so-called man-caused global warming is plant more trees. How much less expensive would it be to double the world population of trees, compared to pretend-power boondoggles, energy austerity privations, and an ultra-regressive energy tax on mature energy infrastructures that already WORK? Peanuts, I'd estimate. Or maybe, pine nuts.

Posted by: johngalt at September 3, 2015 7:01 PM
But jk thinks:

Last week we were a magnitude off in knowing how many there are. Yet now we now with certainty how many there were before people came along. Science is indeed grand.

But let's not quibble: if we're going to grow back the other three Trillion trees, we will need quite a bit of CO2 in the atmosphere. Let's get crackin'!

On a more serious note, this is what the whole Matt Ridley vision is. We use GMOs and unabashedly exploit technology to support human life. This will allow us to return countless acres of organic farmland to animal habitat and forest.

Posted by: jk at September 4, 2015 10:10 AM

September 1, 2015

Headline of the Day

Obama Wanders Around Alaskan Glaciers Searching for Climate Catastrophe
By ThreeSources' favorite, Ronald Bailey [Review Corner]
Posted by John Kranz at 6:11 PM | Comments (0)

Green "Pure Principle"

From "The Hood Robin Syndrome" article jk Tweeted:

And if you are someone saving the planet from imminent doooom and destruction, well, you are the man. There is no action that you shouldn't take if it is in the service of your noble cause. You know that you have right on your side, you're preventing disaster. You know you are fighting the good fight to cool the fevered brows of those sweltering in the 2050 heat by at least a tenth of a degree, and that it is a fight that has to be fought if we are to save the very planet. Your strength is as the strength of ten because your heart is pure, and you have the moral high ground. As a result of all of that, there is no transgression you won't commit in order to have other people pay to make your beautiful Elysian (and slightly-cooler) dream come to fruition...

An almost word for word equivalence with the "pure principle of the prophet" I cited when Ayaan Hirsi Ali told us: "Boko Haram sincerely believes that girls are better off enslaved than educated." Carbon haters sincerely believe that the poor are better off with less energy than with more.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:09 PM | Comments (0)

August 14, 2015

Quote of the Day

As can be seen from the graphic above, there is a strong correlation between carbon dioxide increases and adjustments to the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) temperature record. -- Professor Robert Brown
Posted by John Kranz at 4:08 PM | Comments (0)

Barack Obama - EEVIL Carbon Polluter!

A government imposed cut of CO2 emissions by 30 percent just isn't good enough for some people. What about the other 70 percent!

"Instead, our president proposes ineffectual actions, demonstrably short of what is needed, and persists in approving fossil fuel projects that will slam shut the narrowing window of opportunity to ensure a hospitable climate system. I aim to testify on behalf of young people. Their future hangs in the balance," he said.

"He" is former NASA chief climate scientist, James Hansen - a co-plaintiff in a lawsuit by children against the government claiming that "the nationís fossil fuel policies violate their constitutional rights."

It is sometimes said that a population always gets the government it deserves. In this case, however, it seems that government is getting the mal-educated youth that it deserves.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:42 PM | Comments (0)

August 11, 2015

Boycott Christmas Seals

And any other fundraising activities of the American Lung Association.

Founded in 1904 to fight tuberculosis, it was renamed the Lung Association in 1973 with the tagline "It's a matter of life and breath." Today it is "Fighting for air." And it is an epic battle against something Lung Association National President and CEO Harold P. Wimmer (and the EPA) call "carbon pollution."

"Breathing healthy air is essential to life. The evidence is clear that climate change now harms lung health and public safety. Warmer temperatures degrade air quality by making ozone pollution worse than it should be, and create more particle pollution from increased wildfires and drought. Add to that more frequent and intense extreme weather events, such as heat waves and floods, and the spread of some dangerous diseases, and you see why we need the Clean Power Plan."

Yes, that's right. The "Clean Power Plan" that promises to reduce the global temperature by 15/100ths of a degree in 85 years is somehow, magically, going to "bring immediate health benefits to the American people."

"Carbon pollution" must be quite deadly. I suggest we return to simply calling it carbon dioxide and carbonating our beverages with it. Instead, the Lung Association issues press releases and buys radio adverts to promote the political agenda of the global warmist redistributors. This 2012 Annual Report Addendum [PDF] shows that of the $58 million spent by the Lung Association that year, nearly $10 million went to "advocacy" and less than $7 million to research. (That $7 million is a mere 12% of total expenditures, by the way.)

So no, I'm not inclined to subsidize any more of the Lung Association's sanctimonious hot air. Neither should anyone else.

I can't find the radio spot that precipitated this tirade but I'll share it too, if I do find it. It specifically praised Governor Hickenlooper's Clean Power Plan.

Posted by JohnGalt at 7:00 PM | Comments (2)
But jk thinks:

Some commenter on Reason had a funny quip about that. I'll look it up if I get a chance...

You've got me, bro. [John] O'Sullivan's Law states that any organization or enterprise that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time. That is so sadly true. I'll neither forget nor forgive the flurry of emails I received from the National MS Society hyping the PPACAo2010. Hard to imagine something worse for MS patients.

Posted by: jk at August 11, 2015 7:28 PM
But Keith Arnold thinks:

I'm surprised they weren't on the scene with "I Can't Breathe." They missed the heck out of that bandwagon.

Like many other organizations, they've devolved into fundraising machines to maintain a way of life for their people at the top of their pyramid. The Clinton Initiative may have perfected this business model, but they're not alone.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at August 11, 2015 8:12 PM

June 20, 2015

Lord of the Lukewarmers!

Matt Ridley (he really is a Lord -- bleedin' Monarchists! Oh well, in the case of Ridley and Sir Van Morrison I am prepared to look the other way) has seen favorable mention on these pages both in a couple review corners and many favourable [sic] mentions and videos.

He's been instrumental in moving me from the Popperian Denier camp to the Lukewarmers.

These scientists and their guardians of the flame repeatedly insist that there are only two ways of thinking about climate change--that it's real, man-made and dangerous (the right way), or that it's not happening (the wrong way). But this is a false dichotomy. There is a third possibility: that it's real, partly man-made and not dangerous. This is the "lukewarmer" school, and I am happy to put myself in this category. Lukewarmers do not think dangerous climate change is impossible; but they think it is unlikely.

I find that very few people even know of this. Most ordinary people who do not follow climate debates assume that either it's not happening or it's dangerous. This suits those with vested interests in renewable energy, since it implies that the only way you would be against their boondoggles is if you "didn't believe" in climate change.

VP Al Gore could not be reached for comment. In an article for Quadrant Online (.au), Ridley takes on the more severe topic of "The Climate Wars' Damage to Science." Looking way back to the 1990s, he says:
It's hard to recall now just how much you were allowed to question the claims in those days.

Beyond epistemology and politics, it becomes something of a lukewarmers' manifesto -- but I think all stripes of knuckledraggers will dig it.
Sceptics such as Plimer often complain that "consensus" has no place in science. Strictly they are right, but I think it is a red herring. I happily agree that you can have some degree of scientific consensus about the past and the present. The earth is a sphere; evolution is true; carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The IPCC claims in its most recent report that it is "95 per cent" sure that "more than half" of the (gentle) warming "since 1950" is man-made. I'll drink to that, though it's a pretty vague claim. But you really cannot have much of a consensus about the future. Scientists are terrible at making forecasts--indeed as Dan Gardner documents in his book Future Babble they are often worse than laymen. And the climate is a chaotic system with multiple influences of which human emissions are just one, which makes prediction even harder.

Yogi Berra could not be reached for comment. Were one to find a rational, reasonable proponent of catastrophic change, this comprehensive article debunks the bumper-sticker lines (On the science underlying "97% consensus:" "This should be a huge scandal, not fodder for a tweet by the leader of the free world.") and enumerates the many scandals.
None of this would matter if it was just scientific inquiry, though that rarely comes cheap in itself. The big difference is that these scientists who insist that we take their word for it, and who get cross if we don't, are also asking us to make huge, expensive and risky changes to the world economy and to people's livelihoods. They want us to spend a fortune getting emissions down as soon as possible. And they want us to do that even if it hurts poor people today, because, they say, their grandchildren (who, as Nigel Lawson points out, in The Facts, and their models assume, are going to be very wealthy) matter more.

Pope Francis could not be reached for comment.

UPDATE: Ronal Bailey of Reason could be reached, Here is his post on Ridley's article.

Posted by John Kranz at 9:54 AM | Comments (6)
But johngalt thinks:

I am 95 per cent sure that more than half of the gentle warming since 1950 is due to expansion of urban areas (the urban heat island effect) and that the perception of the warming being something more than gentle is due to the generational migrations from rural to urban areas since 1950.

But who ever listens to a knuckledragger like me?

Posted by: johngalt at June 22, 2015 12:00 PM
But jk thinks:

Half is hard to acquiesce to. Lord Ridley is being nice and I'd be tempted to join him though I suspect we both suspect it may be less. My comfort is that the Anthropogenic part is non-zero and non-negligible: that's what gets you into the club.

Your migration point is important and coincides with my belief that the boomers -- who know the entire universe revolves around them -- grew up in the mid-century cold. I'm the last of the boomers (first after, I prefer) and grew up ice skating outside almost all winter in Denver. Unthinkable today.

Rather than ask what happened 100, 1000, 10000, or 100000 years ago, it's easy for boomers to "know" that there's warming. Context is not their string suit.

I always wonder if there are Al Gore moths. They only live a day -- what do they think when it gets dark? Boomers are like that.

Posted by: jk at June 22, 2015 2:02 PM
But johngalt thinks:

On the question of whether human activity causes a little warming or a lot of warming, I'm reminded of the man who asks a woman to have sex with him for fifty dollars. "Certainly not, sir, I am not that kind of a lady!" Would you do so then for fifty million dollars? "Hmmm. Very well then" she says. Then how about a hundred? "I've already told you I'm not that kind of lady!" To the contrary madam, we've already established that you are and now we're merely haggling over price.

The parallel in the context of this post is whether or not the respiratory gas of plants is a "greenhouse gas" at all. Or more fundamentally, whether the concept of a greenhouse effect makes any sense, physically and scientifically. Joseph Postma at Principia Scientific says not even close.

So, they make that calculation where they dilute the flux density of solar power into a time and space where it doesn't exist, find that "sunshine is too cold by itself to heat the Earth" and then so as a result they invent a scheme where the atmosphere must double the heat from the Sun with "greenhouse gases that man emits in his development".

To what end?

So do you see the connection there? To their underlying Satanic anti-development intent? And their inability to do actual physics for their hatred of mankind? Or rather, their wish to destroy proper ontological science for their hatred of mankind...

Anyone who thinks that climate alarm is about a social progressive political policy must be severely uninformed on the subject of human development. Preventing the development of mankind is not a beneficial social policy, and making energy less accessible to poor countries and to poor people is not socialism! Artificially making energy more expensive (based on reasons of pseudoscience) is not a way to redistribute the wealth away from "Big Oil" or "Corporations". What kind of an idiotic idea and reasoning is that!?

Posted by: johngalt at June 22, 2015 2:52 PM
But jk thinks:

I suggest that you, Ridley, and I can disagree on the certainty of mankind's influence and the exact temperature sensitivity (my favorite topic), yet agree on the best course of action. I suggest somewhere between nothing and fund some actual, objective research.

Those in the catastrophic camp -- which I consider now more "outside the scientific mainstream" than I -- need to enact central planning. The difference between no problem and little problem from a policy standpoint is minimal.

Posted by: jk at June 22, 2015 5:42 PM
But johngalt thinks:

You, Lord Ridley, and I can agree on the best course of action but none of us has a vote in congress, nor constituents' collective biases to assuage. Accepting the "greenhouse effect" dogma is like not calling out a white lie - one is then committed to a series of ever more serious lies.

Or we could just say that Emperors Obama and Francis are naked.

Posted by: johngalt at June 22, 2015 7:31 PM
But johngalt thinks:

The Ronal Bailey article is very "FB postable."

Posted by: johngalt at June 23, 2015 11:42 AM

June 19, 2015

All Hail Taranto!

James Taranto finds the NYTimes's new repect for papl authority and infallibility somewhat remarkable:


Posted by John Kranz at 3:06 PM | Comments (4)
But johngalt thinks:

"...devoted solely to environmental issues?" No, not exactly.

"Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion," the encyclical says.

Heh. Rush Limbaugh, from whom I learned of this, calls it "pope-a-dope."

Let's just see how long the NYT et. al. keep trumpeting this pope's "broad moral awakening" to "do the things that mere facts have not inspired us to do."

Posted by: johngalt at June 19, 2015 3:28 PM
But jk thinks:

The market has declared Mr. Limbaugh a better arguer than me, and perhaps he will strike some coup d'grace and convert the environmental left to a staunch pro-life position.

But I have used a small version of this on Facebook 100 times to no avail. "Oh JK!" FB friends chortle, "the POPE SEZ you have to give the poor free healthcare!" I generally reply that I was unaware of their conversion and baptism and inquire whether they have also adopted the Church's position on homosexuality, abortion, and women's being unfit for the priesthood.

Maybe it will work for Rush; he does it for a living. I've never got anything past "But but but evil right wing evangelical FOX News bla bla bla..."

Myself, I can now claim to disagree with the Church on damn near everything. Glad Mom & Dad are not around to read ThreeSources.

Posted by: jk at June 19, 2015 4:31 PM
But johngalt thinks:

I came not to suggest Rush had some killer argument to convert Democrats to pro-life, only to suggest that the NYT's newfound affection for piety will be short lived, or at the very least, highly selective.

Think of it as doubling down on the exact point made by Taranto, but with abortion instead of contraception.

Posted by: johngalt at June 19, 2015 6:05 PM
But jk thinks:

Agreed. Just suggesting that none underestimate their ability to be "selective." I suppose in a great rush of fairness (hope it goes away soon) it's not exclusive to the left.

Posted by: jk at June 20, 2015 9:40 AM

June 18, 2015

In opposition to "Post-Normal Science"

It seems that a long time has passed since we added a page to the Blog Roll. I humbly submit that it's time to change that. Principia Scientific dot org.

PSI serves no political purpose, supports no political party (or parties) and does not engage in political activities. Our advocacy is for the advancement of the traditional scientific method (as per the ideas of Karl Popper) and resolute opposition to 'post-normalism' in science.

I am saddened, and slightly embarrassed, that it's taken my five years to discover it.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:56 PM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:


Posted by: jk at June 18, 2015 4:28 PM


Well, I checked "rant" just in case I lapse into capitol letters.

"Laudato Si" is out and from Bill McGurn, I am guessing it is as bad as any ThreeSourcer feared. The WSJ Ed Page has a higher percentage of Catholics than most Catholic churches, and they strain to match church teachings with their free-market leanings. McGurn cannot find the sunny side of this.

Blog friend sc shared an interesting piece this morning. Crux Magazine provides a good overview of what encyclicals are, their target audiences, and a brief history. It would be a good overview for the non-Catholics among us or those who went to Catholic schools but didn't always pay attention.

The end of the article contains -- benignly to the authors -- my worst fear: that this will be important and persuasive.

Other religious leaders also have been emboldened by Laudato Si.

Two days before the encyclical was to appear, Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Anglican Church, issued a "green declaration" signed by British faith leaders who assert that climate change has hurt the poor of the world.

On June 15, the Buddhist leader Dalai Lama told his more than 11 million Twitter followers that "since climate change and the global economy now affect us all, we have to develop a sense of the oneness of humanity."

A day later, the Lausanne Movement, representing Evangelical Christians in almost 200 countries said Evangelicals were anticipating Laudato Si and grateful for it.

A Catholic, an Orthodox, an atheist scientist, and an economist will present Francis' [sic] letter this Thursday in Rome. Francis explained this move on Sunday, saying that "we need unity to protect creation."

Trolling level: expert.

UPDATE: The more I read, the worse it gets.

Pope Francis opens the encyclical, which includes extensive sections on the theology of creation, with a lament for man's sins against "Mother Earth": "We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will. The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life."

Posted by John Kranz at 11:57 AM | Comments (3)
But johngalt thinks:

Tantum nos ...

Perhaps dagny's friend was right, so many years ago, that religion is a greater threat to liberty than world socialism. But the one thing none of us ever dared contemplate was that they would join forces to subjugate "every person living on Earth."

Posted by: johngalt at June 18, 2015 1:23 PM
But jk thinks:

Omnibus. (Is that "totally?")

Posted by: jk at June 18, 2015 4:17 PM
But johngalt thinks:

In the 'Pope Bjorn' post you mentioned that the early leaks may have presented an inaccurate summation of the encyclical's overall message.

A Catholic editorialist, having now read it, reports that Pope Francis is unduly pessimistic about the world. Furthermore, he doesn't understand what helps the poor and what hurts them. Francis' principal failure? Recognition of the power of property rights.

Given that poorly defined and enforced property rights lie at the heart of so many environmental problems, especially in poor countries, this whole area is a big omission from this encyclical. This is not a trivial issue or sniping from the sidelines. It is far more fundamental than many of the political-economic issues discussed by Pope Francis which really were a diversion from the excellent moral-theological analysis.
Posted by: johngalt at June 19, 2015 12:57 PM

June 16, 2015

Pope Bjorn!

Got to admit, it has a nice ring to it! And Pope Bjorn has better ideas for helping the poor.

Pope Francis's concern for the poor is clear, so it is understandable that climate change is the topic of his forthcoming Encyclical -- a Papal letter that is sent out to the world. Climate change will hit the most destitute people first and worst.

But the Pope after his letter is officially published, he should tread carefully. The climate policies of today will do little for the poor.

A cruel truth is that almost every significant challenge on Earth hits the poor more than the wealthy: hunger, a lack of clean drinking water, malaria, indoor air pollution. The question then is how we make the most difference for the most vulnerable.

I've been cautioned to not read too much into the current rumors and to wait until the encyclical lands with a hard thud on the doorstep. These early leaks might represent wish-casting from lefty journalists and provocation opportunities from lefties in the church. The actual text may not be a Koch Brothers press release, but I have been cautioned by some smart folks that it mightn't be Sen. Bernie Sanders (Ay-yi-yi! VT) either.

Posted by John Kranz at 6:53 PM | Comments (2)
But jk thinks:

Either way, we're in for a proper Pope-a-palooza this week!

Posted by: jk at June 16, 2015 7:08 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

It takes some major juevos for an Argentinian to lecture anyone about economics! Interesting report here from the clean coal folks, giving the data behind Dr. Lomborg's sage comments.

Posted by: nanobrewer at June 19, 2015 12:02 AM

Pope Denounces "blind faith"

I'm going to take this as a positive: I've longed for the day when Republican candidates and office holders put less emphasis on religious dogma and priorities and now that the current Pope's leaked encyclical to "every person who inhabits this planet" has outed him as a neo-Marxist, perhaps the GOP can take a few steps back from the church.

The pope will also single out those obstructing solutions. In an apparent reference to climate-change deniers, the draft states: "The attitudes that stand in the way of a solution, even among believers, range from negation of the problem, to indifference, to convenient resignation or blind faith in technical solutions."

We certainly wouldn't want to form any beliefs based on faith in something that can't be proved now would we? And yet,

The draft is not a detailed scientific analysis of the global warming crisis. Instead, it is the pope's reflection of humanity's God-given responsibility as custodians of the Earth.

There we are, back to the familiar paternalism that the church does best! Still, there's something not quite right when it makes common cause with Gaia worshippers...

At the start of the draft essay, the pope wrote, the Earth "is protesting for the wrong that we are doing to her, because of the irresponsible use and abuse of the goods that God has placed on her. We have grown up thinking that we were her owners and dominators, authorised to loot her.

I'll never claim biblical scholarship but I'm not familiar with the teaching that Earth has godlike qualities. Isn't this bordering on polytheism? Holy father!

Posted by JohnGalt at 11:28 AM | Comments (0)

June 15, 2015

What's Latin for "we're so fucked?"

We were warned. But early reports indicate that "Laudato Si" (be praised!) will be as bad as any ThreeSourcer expected. The Pontific Astrophysics department of the Vatican has decided that it is all your fault, "Illegitimi Capitalisto" (Capitalist Bastards!)

Crucially, the pontiff's words are expected to bolster the case of scientists and politicians who are seeking a global pact aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and potentially avoiding significant additional warming of the earth's atmosphere and oceans.

In December, nearly 200 countries are expected to meet in Paris and sign the new climate change agreement. Earlier this year, Pope Francis--who expressed disappointment at the failure of past international efforts to reach agreement on the issue--said that he aimed to publish the encyclical in time to affect the Paris meeting.

The pope's encyclical also comes as Europe's oil companies are turning increasingly vocal on climate change amid rising scrutiny from investors and governments. Many are looking to influence the debate by proposing remedies, including the imposition of a carbon tax, that might have a lesser impact on their business than the more wide-ranging changes being called for by some.

He will not only keep the poor poor from his failure to understand economics, he will now keep them freezing in the dark because of his failings in epistemology. Sen. James Inhofe (Denier - OK) suggests "The pope ought to stay with his job, and we'll stay with ours."

Amen, Monsignor Inhofe: let the Senate keep people poor, and his holiness can punish the impure.

UPDATE (And I used the Lord's name in vain several times in typing and posting this piece). The Guardian is thrilled to say that the encyclical will attack Capitalism and anger Republicans. (Well, there's a climate change prediction that has proven goddamnedly accurate!)

The encyclical will go much further than strictly environmental concerns, say Vatican insiders. "Pope Francis has repeatedly stated that the environment is not only an economic or political issue, but is an anthropological and ethical matter," said another of the pope's advisers, Archbishop Pedro Barreto Jimeno of Peru.

"It will address the issue of inequality in the distribution of resources and topics such as the wasting of food and the irresponsible exploitation of nature and the consequences for people's life and health," Barreto Jimeno told the Catholic News Service.

He was echoed by Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga of Honduras, who coordinates the Vatican's inner council of cardinals and is thought to reflect the pope's political thinking . "The ideology surrounding environmental issues is too tied to a capitalism that doesn't want to stop ruining the environment because they don't want to give up their profits," Rodriguez Maradiaga said.

Hat Tip: Elizabeth Price Foley @ Instapundt on the Guardian link.

Posted by John Kranz at 4:45 PM | Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:

"The science is settled - 97% of scientists have long agreed. And now, so does God."

Posted by: johngalt at June 16, 2015 11:22 AM
But johngalt thinks:

Oh yes... "Tantum nos fucked."

Posted by: johngalt at June 16, 2015 1:55 PM

June 12, 2015

About that settled science.

Blog Brother Bryan just linked to Matt Ridley's Rational Optimist Blog. I had seen it but should start visiting regularly; it has been way too long.

I found a gem on the 60 year torrent of bad medical advice. The science underlying cholesterol's and saturated fats' contribution to heart disease was "not just flawed, but tinged with scandal."

In the 1950s, an upsurge in heart disease in American men (probably caused mostly by smoking) led the physiologist Ancel Keys to guess that dietary cholesterol was to blame. When that seemed not to fit, he switched to saturated fat as a cause of high blood cholesterol. To make his case he did things like leave out contradictory data, shift points on graphs and skate over inconvenient facts. He then got big charities and state agencies on side and bullied his critics into silence.

In completely unrelated news:
Dozens of climate scientists and environmental groups are calling for museums of science and natural history to "cut all ties" with fossil fuel companies and philanthropists like the Koch brothers.

A letter released on Tuesday asserts that such money is tainted by these donors' efforts to deny the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.

I don't know why I even posted that second article -- it has noting to do with cholesterol. Or diet.

Posted by John Kranz at 6:35 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

Or science.

Posted by: johngalt at June 12, 2015 7:22 PM

2015: One Scary Ass Place!

I sure I hope I don't have to go to 2015. Though it looked cooler for Marty McFly...

I had a moderately reasonable discussion with my lefty biological brother and one of his misanthropic moonbat friends (come for the jokes, stay for the name-calling) over a Robert Tracinski piece on the NYTimes and Robert Erlich. It seems even the Times has now noticed that the catastrophes predicted by Ehrlich for the 1980s failed to transpire. Though there were those skinny ties.

Stewart Brand, a former disciple of Ehrlich's, asks: "How many years do you have to not have the world end to decide that it didn't end because that reason was wrong?"

Most remarkable, however, is Ehrlich's answer. Yes, he's still around, the Times interviewed him, and they asked him that question. I got the impression it may have been the first time someone prominent has asked Ehrlich to answer this directly, and his guard seems to have been down, probably because he remembers all the puffball coverage he's gotten from the New York Times over the years. So he answered it, and it has to be heard to be believed. He said: "One of the things that people donít understand is that timing, to an ecologist, is very, very different from timing to an average person." I wonder, is BS still the same for an ecologist as it is for an average person?

The NYTimes video at the link (sorry, I could not embed) is worth a watch. Ehrlich thinks the world will end on Thursday instead of Tuesday. And my brother implies that Ehrlich and ilk saved the world by sounding the alarm.

But at the end of the day, Ehrlich was wrong, Malthus was wrong, and the guy hawking his book on Good Morning America was wrong. Who was right? President Coolidge. He said, "if you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you." Like most things in this great and seemingly robust world, we'd have done better to listen to Silent Cal.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:02 AM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

Ehrlich is right - timing is very, very different to an ecologist, who says the earth is likely to end in 10 or 100 years (because humanity=evil), than to an average person who might understand that earth could end in 100,000 to 100,000,000 years.

Posted by: johngalt at June 12, 2015 7:30 PM

June 4, 2015

EPA Chief: Trust Us!

Its all so complicated and sciency -- just let us handle it, we're really smart!

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told Big Think in an interview that while there are limits to how much the federal government can do for issues like global warming, the public needs to trust how the EPA translates the "complicated" science into real-life actions.

"Well I think we all have to recognize the strengths and limitations of government action," McCarthy said.

[Whoa -- I'm I the only one who thinks the next word will be "But?"]
"But here's what I think we can do at the federal level more effectively. We can speak to the science because it's complicated and we do a lot of research and we do a lot of translation of the science into what it means for people so that the decisions can be made on the basis of real science and on the basis of a real technical understanding."

"That's how it has worked in EPA's career for 44 years at EPA is we've listened to the science and the law and we have let solutions take off in the marketplace which is where the cheapest, most effective always win," McCarthy said. "That's why EPA can move environmental standards forward so effectively and grow jobs at the same time."

I know I feel better!

Posted by John Kranz at 4:29 PM | Comments (1)
But AndyN thinks:

Marketplace... You keep using that word... I don't think it means what you think it means.

Posted by: AndyN at June 5, 2015 7:48 AM

May 22, 2015

Obama's Coast Guard Audience

When President Obama named human caused Climate Change as the cause of "an immediate risk to our national security" in his address to the graduating class of the Coast Guard Academy this week, something tells me his intended audience was folks like CNN's Juliette Kayyem.

Skeptics of these global seismic shifts are not simply denying science, they are denying safety and security. Until we recognize -- with the immediacy we would if a nation launched missiles against our cities -- that climate change isn't something that can be debated, but must be mitigated or, failing that, adapted to, we will not expend the effort or resources to prepare ourselves to the one phenomenon that we know is coming: simply, the waters are rising and this is a war.

Got that? The risk of climate change demands the same immediacy as a missile launch against our cities.

But the Arabic speaking world* has a much different perspective on the President's priorities.

*The owner of the video admits "Folks.......this a spoof. It was never intended to be taken as a legitimate news report. Obviously two things are at play here. One, I did the job too well. Two, we have come to the stage in the Obama presidency where quite literally..........anything is possible"

h/t: KHOW's Mandy Connell

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:48 PM | Comments (2)
But AndyN thinks:

My dad used to say that you had to be at least 6' tall to join the Coast Guard so you can wade ashore if your ship sinks. It seems the President chose his audience well. If he can't stop the rise of the oceans, the USCG will start having to recruit taller sailors.

Posted by: AndyN at May 24, 2015 3:54 PM
But Jk thinks:

Heh. Because #nationalsecurity

Posted by: Jk at May 24, 2015 10:18 PM

April 22, 2015


Brother Keith is right. This deserves sharing!

Hat-tip: Insty.

UPDATE: Obama's Earth Day Flight Emits More CO2 Than 17 Cars Would In A Year

Posted by John Kranz at 1:48 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

Only seventeen? Really? They must be the 17 clunkers that escaped the federal "crush and melt all the low-cost used cars" program in Obama's first term.

Posted by: johngalt at April 24, 2015 6:24 PM

April 7, 2015

Harvard Prof: My Former Student, President Obama, is "Misguided" on Climate Regulation

Mr. Tribe dismissed the criticism and said that his brief and comments reflect his views as a constitutional scholar, not as a paid advocate for the coal company. "I'm not for sale," he said. "I'll say what I believe."

Nevertheless, the highly respected left-leaning Harvard Law Professor Lawrence H. Tribe, has made himself a pariah. Or, looking at it from a different perspective, he's decided to stop being a rube.

"I feel very comfortable with my relationship with Peabody," he added. "Somebody wanted my help and it happened to coincide with what I believe."

But a number of legal scholars and current and former members of the Obama administration say that Mr. Tribe has eroded his credibility by using his platform as a scholar to promote a corporate agenda -- specifically, the mining and burning of coal.

So one must choose - he can be a scholar or he can defend commerce qua commerce - but not both.

Next week Mr. Tribe is to deliver oral arguments for Peabody in the first federal court case about Mr. Obama's climate change rules. Mr. Tribe argues in a brief for the case that in requiring states to cut carbon emissions, thus to change their energy supply from fossil fuels to renewable sources, the E.P.A. is asserting executive power far beyond its lawful authority under the Clean Air Act. At a House hearing last month, Mr. Tribe likened the climate change policies of Mr. Obama to "burning the Constitution."

Clearly this is stinging the Rube Movement, and more than just a little.

"Whether he intended it or not, Tribe has been weaponized by the Republican Party in an orchestrated takedown of the president's climate plan," said one former administration official.

Weaponized? If so, it is indisputably as a countermeasure to the president's climate plan for mass economic destruction.

It is widely expected that the fight over the E.P.A. regulations will eventually go before the Supreme Court. If it does, Mr. Tribe said that he expects he "may well" play a role in that case -- which would be argued before two other former students, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Elena Kagan.

Is it possible then that Tribe was retained by Peabody in a strategy to intimidate the high court in favor of "a corporate agenda -- specifically, the mining and burning of coal?" Sure, that's possible. And it's also possible that one branch of government strangling an entire economic sector against the will and without the complicity of other branches really is like "burning the Constitution."

UPDATE: Furthermore, strangling an entire economic sector, or a specific corporation, or even an individual, is the very thing that a "Republican form of government" guaranteed by the Constitution [Article IV, Section 4] was intended to prevent - by a single branch or even, indeed, by all three in concert! It was to be, a minimal state.

The minimal state treats us as inviolate individuals, who may not be used in certain ways by others as means or tools or instruments or resources; it treats us as persons having individual rights with the dignity this constitutes. Treating us with respect by respecting our rights, it allows us, individually or with whom we choose, to choose our life and to realize our ends and our conception of ourselves, insofar as we can, aided by the voluntary cooperation of other individuals possessing the same dignity. How dare any state or group of individuals do more. Or less.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:55 PM | Comments (7)
But AndyN thinks:

I guess by the same logic (and I'm using that word charitably) every climate scientist who takes government money to continue pushing the AGW lie is eroding his credibility by promoting the agenda of his paymasters?

Posted by: AndyN at April 7, 2015 10:41 PM
But jk thinks:

I can be a pretty calm, equanimous guy. But the double standard AndyN points out drives me insane.

With all due respect, petroleum engineers and scientists would find good paying work irrespective of the effect CO2 has on climate. They'll eat.

Climate researchers likely have other options, but their funding is 100% predicated on climate concern. Should accurate risk assessment spread, these folks would all be crafting new grant applications to observe snails or leeches. Yet, a guy who works for Shell or once got a free AFP T-shirt is tainted.

Posted by: jk at April 8, 2015 11:09 AM
But johngalt thinks:

Don't be silly Andy. Everyone knows that nobody "profits" by the spending of tax money by government. It is strictly for the "public good."

Posted by: johngalt at April 8, 2015 2:59 PM
But AndyN thinks:

I don't believe that everyone knows that, JG. I doubt that you could find a better real world example of a disused hole filled to the top with rubbish than most departments at a modern university. There must be at least a few people who believe there's profit to be made by burying bank notes in those holes.

Posted by: AndyN at April 8, 2015 8:28 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Yes. But even though corrupt individuals do personally gain through the misapplication of government revenue, it is called power not profit. They don't seek personal gain so much as the ability to harm others - a power they wield with glee against anyone who they perceive as more powerful or successful than themselves. The term "profit" is dirty to them. They call their gains something else - "Social Justice."

So-called Social Justice is the wage of the bureaucrat. He spends it paying off debts in the ledger of his own self-esteem.

Posted by: johngalt at April 9, 2015 11:30 AM
But johngalt thinks:

I should add that I did sense your complementary sarcasm, AndyN.

I also want to call attention to a timely example of a bureaucrat seeking personal gain through the harming of others - doing so through the tactic of "social justice" - for the advancement of her own dilapidated self-esteem. Her name is Starlight Glimmer, a.k.a. Ivy Starnes.

Posted by: johngalt at April 9, 2015 2:46 PM

April 6, 2015

You Don't Hate Veterans, Do You?

Scientific American:

As part of President Obama's plans to combat climate change, the White House announced a program on Friday for the U.S. Department of Energy to train 75,000 people to work in the solar power industry by 2020, many of whom will be part of a military veterans jobs initiative called Solar Ready Vets.

The announcement comes as the solar industry in the U.S. booms, adding more than 30,000 people to its workforce between 2013 and 2014. Another 36,000 solar jobs are expected to be added this year. Solar power project prices are falling and investments are streaming toward solar as one of the most promising low-carbon electricity generating technologies used to help reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving up global temperatures.

I'm shopping for sweaters! This Global Warming thing is fixed -- thanks, President Obama!

Hat-tip: Insty, who calls it "Solyndra II."

Posted by John Kranz at 4:20 PM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

The only good news about this is the unbearable lightness of its being. Last month, the US Economy added 136,000 lobs -- and that was panned as a possible precursor to recession. This is projected training of 75K over 60 months.

Oh sure, it will probably cost $7,000,000 per trainee, but what an incredible example of "small-ball" from a lame-duck president.

Posted by: jk at April 6, 2015 4:32 PM

March 25, 2015

Snowball's chance in hell

My Facebook feed exploded when Senator James Inhofe (Denier - OK) threw a snowball on the Senate to further his claim that "Global Warming is a Hoax." Inhofe's stunt was easy to mock and I'm not sure I agree. But the response surprised even me. Ozzy bit the head off a live bat and elicited a similar response.

Somehow, I'm not expecting the same old sturm und drang over this:

Virginia Democratic Rep. Don Beyer repeated the claim that more than 7,000 Americans were killed by "climate change-fueled" natural disasters last year in an attempt to tie burning fossil fuels with extreme weather.

The claim, however, is patently false, according to Politifact. It's also a horribly misleading based on the data.

It was the whole world, not the US. And it included earthquakes which are not climate related.

I contend the correct number is zero. Every death from a storm is tragic, but to say that it would not have happened without 1°C warming is specious on a grand scale.

Posted by John Kranz at 3:57 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

Think about it this way - Skeptical independent thinkers, branded "deniers" by their detractors, ask for more and better evidence of something before completely reorganizing and reprioritizing their life around it. Conversely, the detractors lap up every drop of the revealed Truth of self-avowed "experts" (as long as they have the proper scientific letters after their name) and are willing to follow said experts over any cliff, no matter how high. And the skeptics are the ones who are supposedly "anti-science?"

This is like saying that King Arthur was "pro-science" in sparing the life of "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" when he predicted an eclipse of which he had prior knowledge. Another way to look at it is that King Arthur was a rube.

Posted by: johngalt at March 25, 2015 5:50 PM

February 27, 2015

Contribution envy

Now we find out the truth to why representative Godzilla (D-tool) has targeted the barely-detectable donations that Dr's Soon and Pielke might have obtained: they weren't properly weighted (a NASA trademark) or processed... er, whatever....

Dr. James Hansenís financial scandal, now over a million dollars.

This is actually against the law; 18 U.S.C. 209. and 5 CFR 6901.103(d) if anyone's keeping track, which I imagine the nefarious representative of shadowy interests and dubious causes isn't.

I'd always considered Dr. Hansen a piece of Mannly slime, and now we are getting the proof. I imagine he'll get a bit more than a suspension:

failures to report often elegant air and hotel/resort accommodations received on his SF278 as required by law (the amount of direct cash income received from the party providing him travel, as well, is in parentheses):

Blue Planet Prize ($500,000), travel for Hansen and his wife to Tokyo, Japan, 2010

Dan David Prize ($500,000), travel to Paris, 2007

Sophie Prize ($100,000), Oslo Norway, travel for Hansen and his wife, 2010

Some are noting the problems with the witch hunt against Dr. Pielke, notably the AMS.

Go Science!

Posted by nanobrewer at 6:12 PM | Comments (2)
But nanobrewer thinks:

And representative Grijalva made the mistake of including in his Magnificent 7 list the man who could earn PowerLine's Mark Steyn award (if there were one) for pugnaciousness: Steven Hayward, PhD (source of one of my favorite features on the web "This week in Pictures")

Not sure how/when/where but Dr. Hayward fully intends on making hay from this accusation, unlike Dr. Pielke who has decided quietly to cease to study climate change. Hopefully, that's the extent of his muzzling.... Dr. Pielks was in the local news recently: covered mostly fairly by the Daily Camera (the printed version contained the classic sub rosa accusatory sub-headline: "Professor denies...") and quite fairly by local news, as noted on Pielke's own blog.

Posted by: nanobrewer at March 2, 2015 12:54 PM
But jk thinks:

Very fair treatment by The Camera. End times...

Posted by: jk at March 2, 2015 2:35 PM

February 25, 2015

Otequay of the Ayday

"When 'witch hunts' are deemed legitimate in the context of popular causes, we will have fully turned science into just another arena for the exercise of power politics," Pielke wrote. "The result is a big loss for both science and politics."

University of Colorado climate scientist Roger Pielke, on the news that Arizona U.S. Representative Raul Grijalva (D-Hypocrisy) has targeted him for congressional investigation into corporate funding of global warming research.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D- Ariz.), the ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, sent requests to seven universities asking for detailed records on the funding sources for affiliated researchers who have opposed the scientific consensus on man-made global warming. Grijalva cited concerns over possible conflicts of interest involving scientists who have sought to influence the public debate on climate.

But these researchers, Pielke at least, are producing and citing peer reviewed papers that are published in the respected scientific journals. Does Rep. Grijalva suggest that the source of the funding might taint that established, objective process? If so he should also send a memo to his boss in the White House asking for a complete accounting of all of the federal money that has been spent on investigating climate. After all, nobody has a greater conflict of interest regarding climate taxes, regulations, mandates, etcetera, etcetera than does the federal government.

Posted by JohnGalt at 7:17 PM | Comments (0)

February 17, 2015

Schadenfreude is a dish best served cold

Fossil Free Yale, a group pushing the university to divest itself from fossil fuels, told the Yale Daily News that frigid, snowy weather set for this weekend will mean their global warming protest will have to be postponed. -- Michael Bastach, Daily Caller
Posted by John Kranz at 4:39 PM | Comments (0)

February 12, 2015

The threat of climate change is "real"

In his recent State of the Union address, President Obama declared, "No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change." "His statement was met with scattered, muted applause," writes CNN's Madison Park. Almost as if the assembled audience were skeptical of his claim.

But they, and we, would be wise to consider what the Investors' Editorial Page says is the "real reason behind the warming scare," as revealed by a U.N. official.

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.

Intentionally change the economic development model of the last 150 years? The period with the greatest advance in health, welfare, safety, prosperity, peace and happiness in the history of mankind? Destroy capitalism, the mean by which man trades peacefully rather than looting and pillaging in the manner of Genghis Khan and the prophet of Islam?

No, I think I'll have to agree with President Obama on this one. The plans of the U.N. are no hoax.

Posted by JohnGalt at 11:07 AM | Comments (0)

February 10, 2015

All Hail Taranto!

To which Slate's Phil Plait, a doctrinaire global warmist, offers this Orwellian rejoinder: "This is nonsense. The claim is wrong. The scientists didn't manipulate the data, they processed it." -- James Taranto
Posted by John Kranz at 6:53 PM | Comments (6)
But Keith Arnold thinks:

By the same method, my gastro-intestinal tract processes a double bacon cheeseburger, a side of onion rings, and a vanilla milkshake. It takes in a variety of food products, extracts what it wants from them, and then the, *ahem!*, end result is an unrecognizable pile of something bearing no resemblance to the input material with no redeeming value or use.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at February 10, 2015 7:06 PM
But jk thinks:

Taranto's response is not too far off. First Child, Malia Obama, was skeptical of a ban on "processed" food.

So my oldest [sic] daughter [Malia], who was probably 8 at the time, he took a block of cheese and he said, if you can cut this cheese up into the powder that is the cheese of the boxed macaroni and cheese, then we'll use it. She sat there for 30 minutes trying to pulverize a block of cheese into dust. I mean, she was really focused on it, and it just didn't work, so she had to give up. And from then on, we stopped eating macaroni and cheese out of a box, because cheese dust is not food, as was the moral of that story.

I'd say both images work.

Posted by: jk at February 10, 2015 7:20 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Umm, with due respect to the First Child, yes, it [powdered dairy products] is food.

And personally, I've never liked vanilla shakes.

Posted by: johngalt at February 11, 2015 11:47 AM
But johngalt thinks:

And this.

The idea for selling macaroni and cheese together as a package came about during the Great Depression when a St. Louis, Missouri salesman began attaching grated cheese to boxes of pasta with a rubber band.[3] In 1937, Kraft introduced the product in the U.S. and Canada.[4] The timing of the product's launch had much to do with its success. During World War II, rationing of milk and dairy products, an increased reliance on meatless entrees, and more women working outside the home, created a nearly captive market for the product, which was considered a hearty meal for families. Its shelf life of ten months was attractive at a time when many Canadian homes did not have refrigerators.[
Posted by: johngalt at February 11, 2015 11:55 AM
But dagny thinks:

If giving Malia cheese and expecting her to make cheese dust with utensils available in the kitchen indicates that cheese dust is not food, then does giving her raw milk and expecting her to make cheese (with the same equipment) indicate that cheese is not, "real food?" Just askin.

Posted by: dagny at February 12, 2015 1:24 PM
But jk thinks:

And, while we're on the subject, I'm a bit tired of being called a "science denier" by people who won't eat anything unless they personally wash the manure off it.

Posted by: jk at February 12, 2015 2:00 PM

February 4, 2015


According to the Free Dictionary there are 196 different meanings for the acronym "PMS." The two most popular, pre-menstrual syndrome and pantone matching system, are not the topic of this post. I refer to a 197th meaning: Politically Motivated Science

State senator Doug Whitsett, in Oregon of all places, named this enemy of the common man in his commencement speech to last year's graduating class of the OSU College of Veterinary Medicine:

Politically motivated science and statistically significant science are much like oil and water. First, they are nearly impossible to mix. Second, oil rises to the top like science that is fabricated to support political motives.


Estimated, assumed, surrogate or fabricated data points predictably produce 'counterfeit-science'.

Too often, we are asked to believe that biological systems are just 'too complex' to support science that is statistically significant. Moreover, we are expected to accept the unsubstantiated and often unverifiable assumptions that are used to calibrate the models.

Scientific reports that are not statistically significant are by definition, insignificant. They are irrelevant, immaterial and inconsequential.

Worse, computer models are too often manipulated to fabricate alleged scientific support to justify a political end.

The modelled reports are then employed to mislead those who believe that science is the 'final word'.

There is no such thing as 'the final word in science'.

Moreover, there is no such thing as 'scientific consensus' or 'settled science'. The scientific method requires that we continue to question, continue to probe, and continue to debate the validity of every scientific assumption.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:32 PM | Comments (0)

January 26, 2015

Our Betters at Davos

You know. The 1700 private-planefuls of people who have flown to the Swiss Alps to fix Climate Change. IBD has a great editorial.

It's pretty obvious that people who can pay $40,000 to attend Davos and fork over $43 for a hot dog, $47 for a burger or $55 for a Caesar salad -- all actual prices at this year's World Economic Forum -- would seem to be in a poor position to lecture the rest of us.

Even so, Bloomberg highlights remarks by subprime mortgage billionaire Jeffrey Greene that "America's lifestyle expectations are far too high and need to be adjusted so we have less things and a smaller, better existence. We need to reinvent our whole system of life."

Posted by John Kranz at 12:09 PM | Comments (4)
But Keith Arnold thinks:

Until these petulant horses' asses collectively stand together and announce to the world that they are the chiefmost among sinners in the income equality discussion, and en masse announce their agreement to give all their worldly goods to the poor, flog themselves, wear hairshirts for a decade, and live on the average income of an inhabitant of the world, I care a little less than a third of a metric damn about what any of them say on the subject.

I don't begrudge a single one of them so much as half a farthing of their personal fortunes. Income inequality is as necessary to a working economy as temperature inequality is necessary to a working climate. But when any of them have the temerity to scold and lecture the western world for being successful and themselves not stand first in line to remedy what they see as the problem, then they can take their sanctimonious claptrap and reinsert it into the orifice of their choice.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at January 26, 2015 12:39 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Horse's asses should be singular possessive in the antecedent, since "asses" is the plural term. Other than that, Word.

Posted by: johngalt at January 26, 2015 2:39 PM
But Keith Arnold thinks:

A debatable point, especially with you being the horse expert here. I reasoned that a horse has two asscheeks and but one ass, and therefore to have plural horses' asses, one required plural horses.

Be that as it may, the original phrase I was going to use might have pushed the boundaries of both good taste and the ThreeSources stylebook, and equine hindquarters was the polite alternative.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at January 26, 2015 2:51 PM
But jk thinks:

We're worse than the People's Front of Judea. I confess I stopped mid thought to try on the apostrophe in both cracks as it were. Put me down as a squish on abortion, capital punishment, and l'affaire cul de chevaux -- I find either use defensible.

Posted by: jk at January 26, 2015 3:23 PM

January 19, 2015

Quote of the Day

Reports that 2014 was the "hottest" year on record feed the insatiable appetite the public has for definitive, alarming headlines. It doesn't matter that even in the thermometer record, 2014 wasn't the warmest within the margin of error. Who wants to bother with "margin of error?" Journalists went into journalism so they wouldn't have to deal with such technical mumbo-jumbo. -- Real Live Climate Scientist Dr. Roy Spencer
Posted by John Kranz at 5:49 PM | Comments (8)
But Keith Arnold thinks:

I'm hoping that the new Senate chairman of the subcommittee overseeing NASA will correct some of the "mission creep" we've seen recently, and less of their futzing with climate hysteria.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at January 20, 2015 10:16 AM
But jk thinks:

You mean the "Anti-Science-Troglodyte-Senator Ted Cruz" whom the Republicans have elevated to a position where his bad ideas can be truly dangerous? Yes, I heard something about that on Facebook. A few times.

I don't care what he does. Just watching the Jon Stewart crowd melt down is worth it.

Posted by: jk at January 20, 2015 10:41 AM
But Keith Arnold thinks:

That man says he wants to resume manned space flight with American equipment, and he values private efforts in that regard (hello, SpaceX!). He also wants to take us to Mars. I may have to rewrite the history of the future to acknowledge President Cruz' contributions in achieving that goal.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at January 20, 2015 12:20 PM
But johngalt thinks:

"Journalists went into journalism so they wouldn't have to deal with such technical mumbo-jumbo."

And how:

Deflated footballs or not, the Patriots were the better team Sunday, the Colts by nearly 200 yards and dominating both sides of the ball for the majority of the game. It would be a huge stretch to suggest the final score was a product of a football that may have weighed slightly less than usual.

I thought this was an unfortunate conflation of two issues, until I heard a radio news report...

"NFL rules require the official game ball to weigh between twelve and a half and thirteen and a half pounds per square inch."
Posted by: johngalt at January 20, 2015 2:43 PM
But Keith Arnold thinks:

Lessee... tells me the surface area of a football is about 189 square inches... supposed to "weight 12.5 to 13.5 pounds per square inch"... so the football is supposed to weigh between 2,362.5 and 2,551.5 pounds, not counting the weight of the air inside it.

I have a new-found appreciation for the men who throw that ball, the men who catch it, and the men who carry it. Sounds like we need Thor at QB, and The Incredible Hulk at wide receiver.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at January 20, 2015 3:13 PM
But johngalt thinks:

"...not counting the weight of the air inside it." HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yer killin' me.

Posted by: johngalt at January 20, 2015 5:28 PM

January 16, 2015

BREAKING! 2014 Hottest Year on Record!!

The giddy-meter at HuffPo is deep in the red! "BREAKING!"

The year's average combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 58.24 degrees Fahrenheit, according to NOAA. This is 1.24 F above the 20th-century average. Global average land temperatures were 1.80 F above average, while ocean surface temperatures were 1.03 F above average, the agency said. Land temperatures alone were only the fourth-warmest on record, but ocean temperatures were the warmest, which helped to make 2014 the warmest year overall.

Take that haters! They were right all along!

UPDATE: Shenanigans has been called.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:02 PM | Comments (0)

January 1, 2015

New Year's Resolution

In the interest of all the creatures of the world except myself, I herewith resolve:

- To become a vegetarian,
- To purchase an electric car,
- To wear clothing woven from hemp fiber,
- To shower weekly instead of daily,
- To install solar panels on my home, battery storage in the basement, and break my unhealthy connection to the filthy industrial power grid,
- To stop resisting humanitarian efforts to improve the lives of everyone on earth at the expense of American prosperity,
- To say, "Yeah man" more often.

I realize that this is, in itself, not enough to atone for my selfish lifestyle for the past five plus decades, but it is only a beginning and I intend to redouble my efforts again next year. And I don't even consider it a sacrifice, as it is for the good of all life on earth. (Well, maybe not so good for plant life but we can't all be winners, right?] I have no doubt about the power of my intellect to wean myself from the unhealthy foods made from other creatures, like hamburgers, steak, chicken wings, bacon, ... ... ... nevermind.

Posted by JohnGalt at 6:38 PM | Comments (3)
But johngalt thinks:

Heh. This is getting slightly better play on Facebook.

Posted by: johngalt at January 2, 2015 2:26 PM
But jk thinks:

A popular gag at my place of employment is to get on somebody else's (unlocked) computer and send group emails swearing gay love or antithetical opinions in the person's name. I got a queasy "he's been hacked by the NorKs" feeling before I hot the punchline.

Posted by: jk at January 2, 2015 3:11 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Perhaps you were expecting an "unfriend" announcement as well? LOL

Posted by: johngalt at January 2, 2015 4:11 PM

December 31, 2014

But But But...

... isn't the agreement between theory and observation a bedrock principle of "science?" Isn't good science a prerequisite of any ersatz "scientific consensus?"

He [NASA JPL researcher Dr. David Schimel] said: "What we've had up till this paper was a theory of carbon dioxide fertilisation based on phenomena at the microscopic scale and observations at the global scale that appeared to contradict those phenomena.

"Here, at least, is a hypothesis that provides a consistent explanation that includes both how we know photosynthesis works and what's happening at the planetary scale."

So what does this paper say that makes the puzzle pieces fit together, finally?

As emissions add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, forests worldwide are using it to grow faster.

However, the rate at which they absorb this has been hard to estimate with many studies producing contradictory results.

As many rainforests consist of mature trees that are often hundreds of years old, they were not thought to absorb much carbon dioxide.

Young fast growing trees tend to absorb more carbon dioxide as they use the carbon as they grow.

Global air flows and data on deforestation also suggested tropical forests were releasing more carbon dioxide than they absorb.

But this new study suggests the tropical forests are using far more of the carbon, and so growing far faster than previously believed.

How terrible! Higher levels of the "pollutant" CO2 cause the earth to be ... GREENER.

But be careful what conclusions you may be tempted to leap toward, Fracknation:

He [NASA JPL researcher Dr. David Schimel] said: "The future tropical balance of deforestation and climate sources and regrowth and carbon dioxide sinks will only remain a robust feature of the global carbon cycle if the vast tropical forests are protected from destruction."

But but but...

... one man's harvesting is another man's "destruction" and didn't you [NASA JPL researcher Dr. David Schimel] say, "Young fast growing trees tend to absorb more carbon dioxide as they use the carbon as they grow?" If I didn't know better I might suspect that he [you know who I'm talking about] just endorsed modern forest husbandry and harvesting. But we all know better than to believe that, don't we?

Posted by JohnGalt at 6:33 PM | Comments (2)
But Jk thinks:

Surely there is some way to slow climate change by clubbing baby harp seals...

Posted by: Jk at December 31, 2014 8:23 PM
But johngalt thinks:

If it saved even a single tenth of a degree of normalized worldwide average global temperature change, wouldn't it be worth it?

Even if it required clubbing every baby harp seal, to the point of specie extinction?

(Just as long as there's also a wealth transfer component. Naturally.)

Posted by: johngalt at January 1, 2015 6:37 PM

December 29, 2014


Who are the H8Rs again? I seem to have lost my program. The LCV makes it to #2.


Posted by John Kranz at 11:13 AM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

There is already an island that is reserved for "climate deniers." It is called the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America.

Posted by: johngalt at December 29, 2014 7:06 PM

December 23, 2014

Deleterious Anthropogenic Warming of the Globe

I used to consider this a snarky response to climate change fears, but I am warming to it. (Don't forget to tip your bartenders and waitresses...)

If it is so deleterious, why do so many vote with their feet?

By adding an average of 803 new residents each day between July 1, 2013 and July 1, 2014, Florida passed New York to become the nationís third most populous state, according to U.S. Census Bureau state population estimates released today. Floridaís population grew by 293,000 over this period, reaching 19.9 million. The population of New York increased by 51,000 to 19.7 million.

California remained the nationís most populous state in 2014, with 38.8 million residents, followed by Texas, at 27.0 million. Although the list of the 10 most populous states overall was unchanged, two other states did change positions, as North Carolina moved past Michigan to take the ninth spot.

California, Texas, Florida, North Carolina vs. New York, Michigan. It could be tax policy...

Posted by John Kranz at 12:06 PM | Comments (0)

December 11, 2014

Real consequences of "Cli-Fi"

Consequence Number 1: The decline of humanity

From the Friday Funnies linked in today's Cli-Fi post,

David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: "Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."

Now, this hasn't actually happened, but for statements like this to go unchallenged in the public square, along with similar sentiments by Paul Ehrlich, Ted Turner and David Foreman, creates a palpable sense that having a large family is somehow "evil." Au contraire.

I know a lot of us have been brainwashed into thinking that our natural and manufactured resources are shrinking. We're often told that we have a choice of either radically reducing our consumption or our population or we'll eventually run out of water, energy, and food. Excuse me, but this is hogwash. That's because we heard the same thing in 1714, or 1814, and probably the year 10,000 B.C. And they were wrong then too.

What's the biggest reason that the doomsayers about the end of the world's resources have always been wrong? The answer is that some members of those growing populations decided not to give up and came up with new ideas, technologies and resources to replace and improve living conditions. I'm talking about the people who have come up with the technologies to desalinate water, terrace mountainsides, drain swamps and fight disease with vaccinations and sewage treatment. I'm talking about the people who came up with kerosene to replace whale blubber, petroleum to replace kerosene, natural gas to replace petroleum, and so on and so on. All of the above came courtesy of humans. Reduce their number, and you also reduce your chances for the great innovations that make life better for the humans already on the planet and make life more comfortable and possible for billions more to join us.

In short, people are our greatest resource. Economic growth cannot occur without human growth. And this is not a problem that can simply be solved by increasing immigration. That's because there's a societal price we're paying in this country for having fewer children later in life. Just about every parent I know will tell you that the moment their first child was born was the moment they truly accepted the responsibility of their own adulthood to the fullest. That's a moment I'm willing to delay for teenagers - we generally don't want them becoming parents that young. But when we start seeing more 25- to 45-year-olds who clearly haven't yet grown up yet, I get concerned.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:34 PM | Comments (4)
But jk thinks:

Parson Malthuis, call your office!

This is the most pernicious lie of all radical environmentalism and a common thread through all of it -- if climate science goes away, misanthropy will be tied to whatever comes after it.

Posted by: jk at December 11, 2014 4:53 PM
But jk thinks:

Everybody see what Bill Nutz The Science Putz said?

Bill Nye "The Science Guy" has gone as far as issuing a statement that those questioning the accuracy global warming claims shouldn't be referred to as "climate skeptics" but rather "climate deniers."

Posted by: jk at December 11, 2014 4:56 PM
But johngalt thinks:

But Bill, I self-identify as a skeptic. If anyone calls me a denier it will do irreparable damage to my self-image. #EndTheHate!

Posted by: johngalt at December 11, 2014 6:20 PM
But jk thinks:

I try to ignore folks' worst features. And Mr. Nye does come on The Independents to get yelled at now and then.

But it says a lot that they want their intellectual opponents to be called names. #EndTheHate!

Posted by: jk at December 11, 2014 6:53 PM

December 10, 2014

Word of the Day: Cli-Fi

Watts Up With That has a great collection of Friday Funnies (Okay, I'm a few days late..) Over a Century's Worth of Failed Eco-Climate Quotes and Disinformation.

The whole thing is full of gems and is best experienced all at once. But Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger at Cato link to the piece and share a great bon mot: Cli-Fi for Climate Fiction. How awesome is that?

Posted by John Kranz at 4:16 PM | Comments (0)

December 6, 2014

Important Bleg

Watts Up With That has engendered much mirth and edification 'round these parts.

Now, Andrew Watts is trying to raise money to attend and report on the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall meeting.

While many attendees get the taxpayers (via their Universities) or their NGO's via donors to pay for such things, WUWT has no such resources, and despite the claims common from detractors, we are still waiting for that 'big oil check' to arrive. I'll drive down to save money rather than take a plane.

So, like I did last year, I thought I'd ask the readership if they can help out so that there will be somebody at AGU to report on climate science that can do so from the skeptic side. It is very important that at least one climate skeptic reporter attend. Otherwise, the media coverage will be completely one-sided. AGU approved my media pass, so now I'm set to attend.

A good cause if you can scratch a few nickels together.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:58 PM | Comments (4)
But nanobrewer thinks:

I would in a heartbeat if were still employed. I have the utmost respect for AW and the WUWT website has long been my go-to place for sane discourse on the topic.

Here is just a taste of the comments in reply the article that notes a paper from of the now-exhumed Dr. Phil Jones who is still trying to flog the rotting corpse that the AGW cart has become ("Bring out yer dead" comes to mind):

There is not much change in the SH [nb: Southern Hemisphere - brilliantly simple point!] since it is disproportionately dominated (controlled) by ocean that dampens response. If global warming is now going into the oceans there will be no significant still less serious global warming this century.

As regards the NH, the night time lows are not quite as low as they have been and Winter comes later and lasts less long with Spring coming sooner. What is there not to like about that (especially with extended growing periods)?

The fact is that daytimes highs are not getting significantly higher. The tropical regions of the planet are not becoming unhabitable.

The Summer of 2003 which is oftened [sic] claimed to be the warmest summer in Europe with tens of thousands of deaths was only hot in southern/mid France; it was below average in Spain, Italy, Scandinavia, former Yugoslavia and Greece.

when one analyses what is truly happening to temperatures, it is not a scary story. There can only be two scares to global warming. First sea level rise, but this will not be rapid so plenty of time to adapt. Second, it somehow causes more extreme weather, but there is no evidence that extreme weather is increasing; in fact it appears to be decreasing as one might expect if the poles warm so that the rtemperature differential between the equator and the poles is less.

Erudite, informative, analytical and calm even when discussing the egregious behavior of some of the scummier denizens of that swamp (talkin' to you Lewandowski!).

If someone needs a laugh, follow the #AskDrMann thread: but finish your coffee first!

Posted by: nanobrewer at December 9, 2014 1:14 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

Shoot sorry the server is not giving me a second shot at editing my comment; the link for the discussion is here,

and the 4 paragraphs above "Erudite" should all be highlighted and accredited to the commenter, Mr. Verney.

Posted by: nanobrewer at December 9, 2014 1:21 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

The story prompted me to dig into my little-used PayPal account, where a few shekels remain. I dare not ask for them back (to few $$ to risk them getting any account info), so I'll give a Lincoln to the cause.

Posted by: nanobrewer at December 9, 2014 1:33 PM
But jk thinks:

Freedom lovers salute thee.

But am I gonna have drive over to your house and make you apply at Spectra Logic?

Posted by: jk at December 9, 2014 2:59 PM

November 29, 2014

100 percent! Now that's a consensus!

The blog has been slow for a couple days so I hope nobody minds if I re-post a comment made on an IBD editorial article.

Not only is global warming not accelerating, it is, in the words of Cato analysts Paul C. Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels, "actually decelerating, or, (nearly) stopped."

In fact, there is apparent 100% agreement among scientists that the planet isn't warming.

Knappenberger and Michaels looked at 35 scientific papers published in recent years and "every single one of them acknowledged in some way that a hiatus, pause, or slowdown in global warming was occurring."

They arrived at the figure using the same methodology that John Cook used to arrive at his famous claim that 97% of researchers endorsed the "scientific consensus" that man is causing Earth to warm.

Their 100% claim, found on the Watts Up With That blog, was made with their tongues firmly lodged in their cheeks. But even if only one scientist truly believes that, the facts are still the facts, and they say there's been no warming in 18 years and one month.

You remember the 97% claim, don't you? Well, Bart_R couldn't help himself and waded in to prove the veracity of the piece's title, 'Warming Has Stopped But Eco-Radicals' Lunacy Accelerates.' To wit:

While Knappenberger and Michaels have been industrious workers for Cato, one must ask oneself what sort of person industriously works to promote fossil waste dumping without consent of or compensation to the rest of the world?

What sort of business model is that, where waste disposal isn't paid for by the businesses responsible to the businesses and consumers they dump their wastes on, without limit or consideration?

What sort of investor takes advice to conduct themselves so unethically?

So I dutifully replied:

"Fossil waste dumping?" "Waste?" We're talking about CO2 here. The respiratory by-product of every mammal on earth, and the essential molecule for terrestrial plant life. CO2 could only be called "waste" by a mammal. Well, maybe also a reptile. Or invertebrate.

"I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees, MORE CO2, NOW if you please!"

The key words in your comment are "consent" and "compensation" i.e. EPA administrative law and redistributive taxation. A true environmentalist, one who cares about human progress without careless disposal of pollutants, should not support the use of pollution laws in furtherance of this agenda because when people see the so-called "Environmental Protection Agency" classify this life-promoting gas as a pollutant, they begin to lose respect for the mission and the credibility of the agency.

Posted by JohnGalt at 11:11 AM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

Thank you, Lorax, for giving voice to those who have none in this Kingdomist Mammalarchy.

There are many blogs I enjoy from my browser, but I subscribe to Cato's on Kindle. For a dollar or two a month, I always have something if I'm stuck waiting somewhere, but usually I get to read a whole week's on Saturday. Knappenberger and Michaels ("Chip & Pat") are in every week with a devastating, data-driven response to the catastrophists. Great stuff.

Posted by: jk at November 29, 2014 1:56 PM

November 27, 2014

"...and snacks and stuff."

The funniest stuff I've read in a long time is in this "article" on the California ballot initiative voters "approved" to build a high-speed rail line to Hawaii.

"This is a great day for California," says Walter Miller, leader of the Yes on 49 campaign. "Sure it's relatively easy and cheap to fly to Hawaii. But why would you want to take a 5-hour flight, when you can take a 15-hour train ride in an underground tube?"
Posted by JohnGalt at 11:14 AM | Comments (0)

November 19, 2014

Eppur si muove

Princeton's Galileo:

Hat-tip: Insty

Posted by John Kranz at 6:53 PM | Comments (3)
But johngalt thinks:

Golum! He's clearly evil.

*end sarcasm*

I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees; They need CO2, More, if you please!


REAL tree-huggers *heart* CO2!
Posted by: johngalt at November 20, 2014 2:56 PM
But johngalt thinks:

The problem with your "eppur si muove" premise - that the warming since 1998 has been zero, rather than 0.3 C - is the relatively short interval, in geological terms. (But then, so is a century.)

Warmists dismiss this with heaping helpings of Kant/Heisenberg/uncertainty mumbo jumbo.

Posted by: johngalt at November 20, 2014 3:19 PM
But jk thinks:

I like this quite a bit -- it hits most of my favorite points against the alarmists.

If I could separate a couple parts per million from the good Doctor Sm&eacture;agol: anybody hear cotton to concerns of ocean acidification? A dark part of me wonders if, while we have waged war over "global warming," we might have missed a more serious and measurable issue.

Posted by: jk at November 20, 2014 4:10 PM

November 18, 2014

Doesn't Sound Settled to Me...

So. Climate Change -- we gonna freeze or bake in the winter in America?

If anything, [Martin Hoerling of NOAA] says, the warming world will see fewer extreme weather shifts because the Arctic and mid-latitudes will be nearer in temperature.

But Jennifer Francis, a researcher with the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers University who studies the impact of Arctic warming on the global climate, disagrees. Her research predicts that as Arctic warms (and it is warming extraordinarily quickly) the jet stream will weaken and narrow. "When you have a strong jet stream it's like a thick rope. You can give one end a tug and not much happens." But as it weakens, she says, it's more like a string. A shake (or a typhoon) will send waves all along its length, causing the Arctic monster to move south more often.

Uh huh.

Posted by John Kranz at 3:40 PM | Comments (0)

November 14, 2014

Berkeley With Snow

Steven Hayward gives a talk on Climate Change but takes some slaps at Brother jg's Alma Mater in his intro,

Posted by John Kranz at 6:06 PM | Comments (4)
But johngalt thinks:

All in good fun!

Enjoying the lecture...

Posted by: johngalt at November 15, 2014 12:11 PM
But jk thinks:

He's funny -- did you see him at LORT-F? He had just started in Boulder. Great talk.

Posted by: jk at November 16, 2014 6:15 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

I thought the 97% claim was simply from a blogger, who was an artist! Perhaps Prof. Hayward found the source of the blogger's claim....

Posted by: nanobrewer at November 17, 2014 6:26 PM
But jk thinks:

Brother jg posted this 97% explanation on FB the other day. It's from the G-g-g-g-g- Guardian

Posted by: jk at November 17, 2014 6:34 PM

November 13, 2014

Silly Lefty, This is What Mandates Are For

The Daily Camera reports: Boulder plots path to climate goals

The city also needs a marketing campaign to engage the community in a shared goal, he [Boulder Senior Environmental Planner Brett KenCairn] said. (...)

"What motivates a community to participate in this level of transformation?" he said. "The way we have been framing the problem and the goal is now part of the problem. Aspirational goals are deeply personal. Climate as catastrophe is not a good motivator."

Question: Once regional drivers pass the city limit sign, don't they belong to someone else's ambitious climate goals?

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:00 PM | Comments (0)

Not Impressed with the Sino-American Pajama Party

The romance of the fresh princelings of Beijing is that they needn't abide such barriers to enlightened governance as elections, a free press, transparency, the rule of law and two political parties. They can simply order economic transformation in the next five-year plan, and censor any dissenters as Al Gore wants to do in the U.S. Thus in China Mr. Obama has found the ideal climate-change partner: A technocratic elite that can instruct the bourgeoisie how they must light their homes and commute to work.

We and many others have been skeptical of a U.S.-China carbon pact, though that was because we assumed the White House and green lobby would demand terms that imposed at least some discipline on Chinese behavior. We discounted the possibility that Mr. Obama preferred the illusion of progress, and that his green allies could be rolled as cheaply as the terms of Tuesday's accord.

Under the nonbinding, no-detail agreement, Supreme Leader Xi Jinping promises "to intend to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030," and then maybe after that to decline. This is another way of describing the status quo. -- WSJ Ed Page, "Green Leap Forward"

Posted by John Kranz at 11:17 AM | Comments (3)
But Keith Arnold thinks:

If I recall correctly, any treaty, including a climate treaty, depends on the approval by the Senate (see: Kyoto; see also, Law of the Sea Treaty). I'm hoping McConnell has the testicular wherewithal to tell the SCOAMF and China they both can go to hell.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at November 13, 2014 1:49 PM
But jk thinks:

But that Constitution thingy is, like, 100 years old!

I suspect the key word is "non-binding." The President will not subject himself to a repeat of the 0-95 resolution against Kyoto(sounds like an Avalanche score...) His phone and his pen will attempt administrative compliance. As the WSJ Ed Page suggests, much in the same manner as his Chinese Counterpart.

Posted by: jk at November 13, 2014 2:22 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

The Onion is already all over it:

China Vows To Begin Aggressively Falsifying Air Pollution Numbers,37429/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Default:2:Default

I think Obama's teflon coating (and ablative armor) is all but worn off....

Posted by: nanobrewer at November 13, 2014 11:41 PM

October 14, 2014

To be fair, the science was 83% Settled...

Buy that Escalade -- for the planet!

In this new effort, the researchers took a new look at the photosynthesis process and how it might be altered in the presence of increasingly higher concentrations of CO2. They found that as CO2 levels rose, plants altered the way they processed the gas, saving more of it to use as a fertilizer, which allowed the plants to grow bigger or to become more robust, which in the end meant more CO2 was taken out of the atmosphere. Not coincidently, the researchers note, their research showed that when plants were exposed to the same higher levels of CO2 as actually occurred over the past century, they were able to absorb on average 16 percent more CO2, which very nearly coincides with the 17 percent error difference earth scientists have found with their climate models. --

Posted by John Kranz at 1:28 PM | Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:

According to this handy biomass entry at Wikipedia,

On land, there is about 1,000 times more plant biomass (phytomass) than animal biomass (zoomass).


Apart from bacteria, the total global biomass has been estimated at about 560 billion tonnes C.

But we can probably ignore the effects of plant biomass reactions to changes in atmospheric CO2. We'll just call it "negligible."

Yeah. That's it!

Posted by: johngalt at October 14, 2014 2:37 PM
But jk thinks:

They also failed to account for water in the atmosphere because it was "too complex." That might be corrected in new models, but it never gave me a lot of warm fuzzies.

Posted by: jk at October 14, 2014 3:28 PM

October 13, 2014

Don Beaudreaux Wins the Internet this Week!

With his letter to the NYTimes:

Paul Krugman suggests that "deficit scolds" ignore two important facts: first, any net harm to human well-being generated by government deficits are "uncertain"; second, even if such harm does materialize, it won't do so for many years ("Secret Deficit Lovers," Oct. 10).

Whether or not Mr. Krugman is correct in his fiscal analysis, it's striking that in other of his writings he sides aggressively with those who we might call "carbon scolds" -- people who ignore two important facts: first, any net harm to human well-being generated by climate change is uncertain; second, even if such harm does materialize, it won't do so for many years.

I weep at its beauty.

UPDATE: Boudreaux also has a guest editorial in the WSJ today. If I may paraphrase for those with no susbscription, the GMU economics professor and law professor Todd Zywicki, say "Hayek told you so!" to the developers of Dodd-Frank and the PPACAo2010.

Posted by John Kranz at 1:31 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

Yes, it is truly, sublime.

And as such, is completely beyond the grasp of our brethren who knoweth not the identity of Joseph Biden.

Posted by: johngalt at October 13, 2014 2:21 PM

October 1, 2014

Quote of the Day II

When you point out the unreality of green energy dreams, you are met with foam-flecked denunciations of the Koch brothers. In fact the opposition to the climateers is tiny by comparison to the resources deployed by the environmental establishment, not to mention the massive sympathy they receive from an uncritical media. From the way people like Al Gore complain you'd think the climateers were up against the teachers union. -- Steven Hayward, Climate Change Has Jumped
the Shark"
Posted by John Kranz at 12:26 PM | Comments (0)

September 26, 2014

Not Even Watermelons Any More

Blog friend sc shares a link and an observation: "It seems that it's only been in the last few months that progressives are stepping out with this rather than trying to mask it."

It is one thing to see the goofy socialists all come out for the climate change march with their anti-capitalist literature and banners, it's another to see grownups, and I'll kindly include Ms. Naomi Klein and some of the writers at Slate. (Generous R Us, I know.)

The solution to climate change is not just some CFLs and wealth transfer to poor nations in the UN and Neil deGrasse Tyson hectoring us on the Internet. The green skin of the watermelon is peeled away (a very curious way to eat watermelon) and the "red" of the movement is suddenly exposed for all to see.

According to social activist and perennial agitator Naomi Klein, the really inconvenient truth about climate change is that it's not about carbon--it's about capitalism.

Three years ago, Klein wrote a powerful essay for the Nation that tackled this idea. Now, she's turned her argument into a hefty book, which was released last week--just days before hundreds of thousands took to the streets in New York City, many of whom carried banners strikingly similar to the messages Klein supports. (Klein sits on the board of directors at, an organization at the heart of the growing grass-roots uprising against climate inaction, and which helped organize Sunday's march.)

This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate is focused on exposing how the relentless pursuit of growth has locked us in to a system that's incompatible with a stable climate. The bottom line is, the reality of global warming has forced civilization into a hard choice: Either continue on as usual, committing the planet to growing inequality as the effects of climate change escalate and disproportionately affect the poor, or try a radically different path.

Umm, yeah, that terrible status quo that has lifted billions out of poverty and privation. That McCloskleyesque growth curve -- we have to put a stop to that. I don't know if you watched any of Reason's excellent videos where they interviewed the protesters, but Ms. Klein has nailed it They really have moved on from light bulbs.
The divestment movement is a start at challenging the excesses of capitalism. It's working to delegitimize fossil fuels, and showing that they're just as unethical as profits from the tobacco industry. Even the heirs to the Rockefeller fortune are now recognizing this.

The next step is, how do we harness these profits and use them to help us get off fossil fuels?

Well, that's going to have to be legislated. Fossil fuel executives aren't going to just give away their billions.

Exactly. Exxon needs to pay--it's the most profitable company on the planet. It's also the descendent of Standard Oil.

In the book, I talk a lot about Richard Branson's pledge to donate all the profits from his airline to fight climate change. When he made that announcement, it was extraordinary. The problem is, no one held him accountable--well, besides me and my underpaid researcher. But at least Branson's heart was in the right place. These profits are not legitimate in an era of climate change. We can't leave this problem to benevolent billionaires.

What happened at the U.N. Tuesday was the same thing. Instead of a science-based treaty, with carbon targets divided equitably among nations, what you had was governments and corporations randomly making voluntary pledges and hoping it added up to something.

But, hectoring our friends to change their light bulbs is still really really important, isn't it?
You said you've been working on this book for five years. What changes have you made in your own life in that time to change your own footprint? What can readers of your book do?

That's a complicated question. I think the environmental movement has overstressed the consumer side of it. When you start talking about sacrifices, pretty soon people start feeling like chumps. In my town, we have centralized composting, a new system of better bike lanes, and plastic bags are charged for. But Canada's still missing our carbon targets.

Centralized composting. Still missing targets. It gives one pause. You really have to read the whole thing.

UPDATE: The first bad review...

Posted by John Kranz at 10:47 AM | Comments (3)
But johngalt thinks:

I'm glad to read that we've moved beyond "obscene" profits to merely "illegitimate" profits. And that enviros no longer want to eliminate them, but to steal them. Some small measure of progress there.

And how far do you suppose she'd get with this argument if it were framed as "Free-Enterprise vs. the Climate" or "The divestment movement is a start at challenging the excesses of free-enterprise?"

Yeah, the scourge of billions of people doing things freely is, simply, unsustainable. "Incompatible with a stable climate." Hey you, over there, butterfly. STOP FLAPPING YOUR WINGS!!

Posted by: johngalt at September 26, 2014 11:48 AM
But jk thinks:

I do appreciate the honesty. Too often, my lefty buddies say "we don't want to eliminate profits..." But "Yes, we must institute world socialism today to prevent a rise in sea level" has a bold candor about it.

I may have the One Blog Comment to Bind Them here -- take this for a spin:

I listened to Craig Biddle's video Why use the word "Selfishness?" Biddle suggests that a clever interlocutor would quickly guess that your new synonym actually means "selfish" and that it would be as easy to rehabilitate the original. I'll grant that you have a better foundation to bifurcate between "Free Enterprise" and "Capitalism," but I am less convinced that a fresh term would stay unsullied for long.

Posted by: jk at September 26, 2014 1:36 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Is that a reason not to try?

And it's taken roughly a hundred years to sully capitalism this badly. Would you settle for the same lifespan for "free enterprise?"

Posted by: johngalt at September 26, 2014 7:14 PM

September 12, 2014

Otequay of the Ayday

Historically speaking, though, would it have been better for humanity to avoid an "Age of Pollution" and wallow in a miserable pre-Industrial Age, where poverty, death, disease and violence, were far more prevalent in our short miserable lives? Or would we have chosen global warming? I think the latter. And I think we'd do it again.

All-hail Harsanyi - 'Global Warming was Worth it'

Plus a bonus - Harsanyi's reductive graph of the history of the world:


Posted by JohnGalt at 2:50 PM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

Hail! (Aand if you get in an impish mood, share that with dagny's FB-interlocutor on inequality. This McCloskeyesque graph makes my point better than the S&P500 charts I posted.)

Posted by: jk at September 12, 2014 3:32 PM

l'Affaire Mann

Don't know who is following the fun of Dr. Michael Mann's denying his responsibility for the famed "hockey stick" diagram -- yet bloggers found it cited in his CV.

The always-quote-worthy other litigant, Mark Steyn, does not disappoint:

One is inclined to be generous. My old friend Irving Caesar, lyricist of "Tea For Two" and "Just A Gigolo", had a legendary Broadway flop with a show called My Dear Public. The reviews were scathing, and singled Caesar out particularly, as he was the show's producer, and lyricist, and co-author and co-composer. The following morning he bumped into Oscar Hammerstein and said, "So they didn't like it. But why pick on me?" That's Mann's attitude to the 1999 hockey stick he co-authored: So it's misleading and over-simplified. But why pick on me?

Posted by John Kranz at 12:41 PM | Comments (0)

September 10, 2014

Lord Ridley Hisself!

Posted by John Kranz at 2:29 PM | Comments (0)

September 9, 2014

But, the Science is Settled...

While I enjoyed Matt Ridley's WSJ Editorial on Climate Change, it seems not everybody did.

Post-script. After the article was published, an astonishing tweet was sent by the prominent economist Jeffrey Sachs saying

"Ridley climate ignorance in WSJ today is part of compulsive lying of Murdoch media gang. Ridley totally misrepresents the science."

Curious to know how I had lied or "totally misrepresented" the science, I asked Sachs to explain. There was a deafening silence.

So it begins... You can follow this link to Ridley's blog and read the original editorial outside of Murdoch media gang's lying paywall as well as a lengthy postscript about a HuffPo piece under Sachs's byline (which Ridley does not believe was written by Sachs). Good, clean, nasty fun. The aspersions are so thick you can cut them with a knife!

Frank @ Being Classically Liberal on Facebook asked the other day why libertarians don't just accept climate change: 97% yadda yadda, we don't want to be the anti-science yadda yadda makes us look stupid yadda yadda. I can dig where he is coming from. With all the heterodoxy we have to convince progs and low-information voters, it does seem a side rail at best to wave the 3% deniers flag.

Yet the pushback was pretty strong and I'd say about 97% opposed to his olive branch. All the reasons employed here were brought up (and I linked to the Ridley piece). Denying Climate Change is a popular trope in Democrat campaign ads this season -- and I agree that is probably effective -- but the lack of rigor in climate science needs to be exposed.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:23 AM | Comments (3)
But johngalt thinks:

"Ridley totally misrepresents the science" of man-caused climate change, says prominent economist.

So one must really wonder, is the "orthodoxy" we are being so fanatically attacked for doubting, or even questioning, an existential issue for climate scientists or for Keynsian political economists?

This particular one, in 2005, penned a book calling for the annual redistribution of 0.7% of the combined GNP of first-world countries into "carefully planned development aid" to "eliminate" extreme poverty "globally by the year 2025."

"He presents the problem as an inability of very poor countries to reach the "bottom rung" of the ladder of economic development; once the bottom rung is reached, a country can pull itself up into the global market economy, and the need for outside aid will be greatly diminished or eliminated."

Sure. Sure it will. First-world countries experience in helping their own very poor citizens reach the bottom rung, from whence they can pull themselves up into the national market economy, has proven how that will work out, has it not? Calls for ever greater outside aid are to be expected, and long before 2025.

Posted by: johngalt at September 9, 2014 2:28 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

@JK: but the lack of rigor in climate science needs to be exposed

Yes, and surely another sign was how the prominent economist, Jeffery Sachs, allows his twitter account to be used by a rank polemic. On Ridley's blog, he notes that Bob Ward must have been the author, in an interesting twist:

First, Ridley appears to glean stylistic and tonal differences between the tweet and Sachs' usual work.

Then notes the offender tacitly fessed up to it by posting a bunch more angry nonsense and pointing it out to Ridley.

It should surprise no-one by whom the offender is employed, who Ridley describes as one who writes to newspapers furiously denouncing the author of any article on climate change that he does not like

The thing I noted about Ward's comments, is
1. Cowardly, to hide behind someone else
2. full of uncited "predictions" like
Earth is warming in line with standard climate science, and that the Earth's warming is unabated in recent years

Which frigging predictions/science, if you please? Make enough predictions (and quibbly disclaimers that occasionally ring with a hint of humility) and one will surely be right...

3. An angry, one-way polemic, like the woman I was dating last year. Once she's done shouting nonsense, there's not much left but an embarrassed and immature silence (which I rarely let stand).

I'm beginning to think all liberals have some sort of "daddy issues" and mistake Gummint as a benevolent Big Brother.

I'm sure this that 100% of the AGW posturing I see is selfish, egotistic back-patting by people who really don't deserve it.

Posted by: nanobrewer at September 11, 2014 11:29 AM
But jk thinks:

And yet. They have been pretty successful at painting the deniers (and the lukewarmers) as anti-Science or scientifically illiterate. I read quite a bit of intelligent commentary in opposition and tire that I cannot share it except in the safe confines of ThreeSources.

Posted by: jk at September 11, 2014 12:24 PM

September 5, 2014

Whither Climate Change?

Matt Ridley has been treated well by Review Corner -- twice.

He has a guest editorial in the WSJ today that will warm a ThreeSourcer's heart somewhere between 0.3°C and 0.5°C.

First the climate-research establishment denied that a pause existed, noting that if there was a pause, it would invalidate their theories. Now they say there is a pause (or "hiatus"), but that it doesn't after all invalidate their theories.

Alas, their explanations have made their predicament worse by implying that man-made climate change is so slow and tentative that it can be easily overwhelmed by natural variation in temperature--a possibility that they had previously all but ruled out.

When the climate scientist and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote an article in 2006 saying that there had been no global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures, there was an outcry. A year later, when David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point, the environmentalist and journalist Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was "wrong, completely wrong," and was "deliberately, or otherwise, misleading the public."

We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was wrong.

Ridley is a self-identified "lukewarmer" (I came out as such recently) but is thinking that the temperature sensitivity may well be less than the non-catastrophic levels he expected.
The warming in the last three decades of the 20th century, to quote the news release that accompanied their paper, "was roughly half due to global warming and half to the natural Atlantic Ocean cycle." In other words, even the modest warming in the 1980s and 1990s--which never achieved the 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade necessary to satisfy the feedback-enhanced models that predict about three degrees of warming by the end of the century--had been exaggerated by natural causes. The man-made warming of the past 20 years has been so feeble that a shifting current in one ocean was enough to wipe it out altogether.

Putting the icing on the cake of good news, Xianyao Chen and Ka-Kit Tung think the Atlantic Ocean may continue to prevent any warming for the next two decades. So in their quest to explain the pause, scientists have made the future sound even less alarming than before.

I'll save you the email -- I have a link that should be good for seven days to moochers and looters non-subscribers.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:32 PM | Comments (13)
But jk thinks:

Pour l'encouragement des autres -- Voltaire

Posted by: jk at September 5, 2014 6:26 PM
But Keith Arnold thinks:

A longer answer: it's a mistake to see Islam as a homogeneous whole. That goes in both directions, and this is part of the problem: many of them see us as a homogeneous whole in return: they equate "American" and "Christian." We know that's not true. By the same token, it's not effective to paint them with a broad brush either.

For example, in Jordan, which is a largely westernized nation, the vast majority of the people are Muslim -- be they also like karaoke, discos, Levis, and KFC. In a significant plurality there, Islam is a cultural religion rather than a deeply-held belief system. Azmi was born to a Muslim family, so she's a Muslim. Like many Christians here in America, her "religion" is a label that's just one of many facets of her life, no more or less important to her than her collection of System Of A Down CDs. Most people in Jordan are like her, and are comfortable with the Western World, and get along just fine with Israel. Her religion isn't pervasive and all-encompassing to her day-to-day life.

In any Muslim nation, you're going to find a mix of devoted adherents and casual followers. You're also going to find a significant group in the middle that don't really think about it, but for the sake of conforming (and in some cases, for the sake of self-preservation), will go along with whoever's the de facto leader. The percentages in the mix vary from nation to nation, but you get my meaning. Let's take a look at Iran, for example.

If you go pull up pictures of Iran prior to the departure fo the Shah, you'll see men and women of all ages in western attire. The women wear swimsuits at the beach, and the men drive Chevys, and they all like dating and clubbing, and -- well, they're like us. Just a couple of years later, they're suddenly ultra-Islamic. Do you think the collected attitudes of the whole nation suddenly did a 180 in the space fo five years? Not a chance. What happened is you've got a takeover by the Ayatollah Khomeini and his henchmen - a percent or two of the population. Surrounding them are the groupies, who really aren't all that different from Hitler's brownshirts: they are the kind of people who like power, like being part of the "in" crowd, and like being over other people. That's maybe five percent of the population.

The problem is, there's one key difference between the Islamic world and us. They have centuries of culturally obeying their kings. The bossman says it, so I must do. That's not how Americans think. Also, that six percent or so (1) has all the AKs and all the sword, and (2) are batshit crazy enough to use them. So, suddenly the general population suddenly gets in line with Shari'a law. The boss tells me to, and he'll behead me if I don't so I obey.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban is only a small part of the population, but they're now the ruling part. And the masses fall in line - some out of the urge to follow the leaders, and some of out of fear.

You know who has the worst situation? The House of Saud. The Saudi leadership is pro-Western, and understands the simple principle of (a) pump the oil, (b) sell the oil to the West, (c) get rich and stay rich, and (d) live well. The problem is that the greatest part of their population is poor and uneducated, and in order to stay in power, the House of Saud spends a great deal of money and influence on providing for the nation. Some of this means supporting the jihadist madrassas, for example. They literally are in a constant state of placating their own internal opponents.

That's all background. Your question is, if we destroy ISIS, do we risk making our situation worse as a result of polarizing the Islamic world and causing new jihadists to be recruited? My answer is a firm no -- but there are qualifications, and some of this will be ugly.

We're not talking about a campaign to beat them into a surrender and forcing them to cease aggressions. ISIS falling into the "devoted adherents" group; they will eventually rearm and start making trouble again. We are seriously talking about killing them. First, Islam - as written, and as practiced by those devoted adherents - is a religion of domination and conquest. What they understand it force and violence. They are like Klingons in this regard: letting your defeated opponent live is weakness to them. They would kill us if the roles are reversed. They're doing it now: everyone who surrenders to them is executed. Sun Tzu said this is a mistake, because if your opponent knows he will die if he is beaten, he has nothing to lose, and will fight for dear life. This is galvanizing the Kurds and especially the Peshmergas. If they are not killed, they will take up arms again when they can.

Destroying ISIS and their enablers, the imams and mullahs who call us The Great Satan, will not lead to more jihadists, for the simple reason that the dead can't recruit new members from the undecided. Kill off the anti-Western leaders and forces, and that big follower class we were talking about will be following a more civilized leader.

Want to know who was an interesting example of someone who understood this? Douglas MacArthur. His attitude when he dealt with Japan after the war was "We won. We're a better nation that you. Your emperor isn't a god. You should be more like us." The Japanese looked at him, looked and each other, and the whole nation suddenly emulated America because we beat them fair and square - and then they started selling us Toyotas and Seikos, and we've been friends ever since. Sean Connery and Wesley Snipes in "Rising Sun" notwithstanding.

Bear in mind: in much of the poor and uneducated Middle East, the whole "Great Satan" routine is populism. The masses look to their leaders asking why they're poor, and those leaders rattle their sabers and blame America, because the way to stay leader is to deflect. Nothing unites like a common enemy, and we get painted as their Emmanuel Goldstein. Obliterate that source, and you're looking at a very different Middle East.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at September 5, 2014 7:03 PM
But jk thinks:

Iran? 1956? You're welcome!

Posted by: jk at September 5, 2014 7:24 PM
But Keith Arnold thinks:

I told you, man - would I lie to you? Would you trade that for a burqa?

And if I'm not too terribly mistaken, that's a Triumph Herald 1200 in the background. Are you sure it was shot in 1956?

Posted by: Keith Arnold at September 5, 2014 7:39 PM
But Jk thinks:

The Persians were a very advanced civilization...

That was from memory. I'm prepared to accept correction.

Posted by: Jk at September 5, 2014 8:33 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Thank you for the thorough explanation, KA. It validates my strategy which is, treat the Islamic State movement as a tumor on a healthy body. Destroy it, and take as much of the diseased tissue as possible in the operation, then care for the patient and monitor for any new tumor sites. What I'm saying is that Islam can be "cured" of its affliction with Islamism.

What is the difference between Islam and Islamism? Islam says, "These are my beliefs." Islamism says, "These are your beliefs too, or you die."

Posted by: johngalt at September 8, 2014 11:46 AM

August 27, 2014

Truth now lacing up second shoe

The first shoe was Michael Mann's Climategate. The second may well be, Rutherglen-gate.

Temperatures measured at the weather station form part of the ACORN-SAT network, so the information from this station is checked for discontinuities before inclusion into the official record that is used to calculate temperature trends for Victoria, Australia, and also the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The unhomogenized/raw mean annual minimum temperature trend for Rutherglen for the 100-year period from January 1913 through to December 2013 shows a slight cooling trend of 0.35 degree C per 100 years. After homogenization there is a warming trend of 1.73 degree C per 100 years. This warming trend is essentially achieved by progressively dropping down the temperatures from 1973 back through to 1913.

Stay with me here, this is a bit tricky. It seems one must be a climate "scientist" in order to comprehend the validity of the, umm, "technique."

Sometimes weather stations are moved, you know, geographically, from one place to another place in the same vicinity. This can produce a "discontinuity" in the recorded temperature. So this "homogenization" algorithm was invented to, you know, correct the "errors" that result when the data is inserted into computer climate models. Well that raw data from Rutherglen was causing a whale of an error. It showed that the observed temperature trend over most of the 20th century was downward, when every climate scientist knows that the globe really warmed during that time, and is still warming today because there aren't enough wind farms. It's a settled consensus it is, dontcha know.

There's only one problem: (Okay, there's more than one problem, but this is the biggest problem.) "There are no documented site moves."

The Bureau has tried to justify all of this to Graham Lloyd at The Australian newspaper by stating that there must have been a site move, its flagging the years 1966 and 1974. But the biggest adjustment was made in 1913! In fact as Bill Johnston explains in todayís newspaper, the site never has moved.

Surely someone should be sacked for this blatant corruption of what was a perfectly good temperature record.

Related: Just coming to this story I hadn't realized that Rutherglen is only one site where data has been "remodeled." There is also Amberley and Bourke.

I understand that by way of response to Mr Lloyd, the Bureau has not disputed these calculations.

This is significant. The Bureau now admits that it changes the temperature series and quite dramatically through the process of homogenisation.

I repeat the Bureau has not disputed the figures. The Bureau admits that the data is remodelled.

What the Bureau has done, however, is try and justify the changes. In particular, for Amberley the Bureau is claiming to Mr Lloyd that there is very little available documentation for Amberley before 1990 and that information before this time may be ďclassifiedĒ: as in top secret.



Posted by JohnGalt at 7:18 PM | Comments (0)

That Constitution Thingy...

"Obama Unveils New Plan to Work with Foreign Governments to Ignore the Constitution" screams the headline. I do get a lot of wacko emails. But this is from the partisan-yet-measured Jim Geraghty and he notes the difference:

There are a lot of nonsensical or highly exaggerated chain e-mails accusing the president of working with foreigners to subvert the U.S. Constitution. But this time you've got the foreigners and administration officials themselves confirming it on the front page of the New York Times!
"There's a strong understanding of the difficulties of the U.S. situation, and a willingness to work with the U.S. to get out of this impasse," said Laurence Tubiana, the French ambassador for climate change to the United Nations. "There is an implicit understanding that this not require ratification by the Senate."
"The difficulties of the U.S. situation" is a reference the fact that we have a Senate that opposes the treaty.

And, if you're looking, it's Article II, Section 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

Doesn't sound like a suggestion to me.

UPDATE: All Hail Taranto:

In order to "sidestep" the constitutional requirement that laws be made by lawmakers, the Times continues, "President Obama's climate negotiators are devising what they call a 'politically binding' deal that would 'name and shame' countries into cutting their emissions."

Posted by John Kranz at 10:33 AM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

Watch for this simple solution to Obama Administration and foreign governments' problem - "Hello, this is Barack Obama calling, please take a pen and change the word 'treaty' to 'pact.' Thank you very much. Hey, I think I'm next off the tee."

Posted by: johngalt at August 27, 2014 11:30 AM

August 11, 2014

The Science is Settled!

Warmin'? Coolin'? It's a conundrum -- but one with a chocolaty certain center.

Or, we have no freaking idea what is going on -- but, the science is settled!

The scientists call this problem the Holocene temperature conundrum. It has important implications for understanding climate change and evaluating climate models, as well as for the benchmarks used to create climate models for the future. It does not, the authors emphasize, change the evidence of human impact on global climate beginning in the 20th century.

"The question is, 'Who is right?'" says Liu. "Or, maybe none of us is completely right. It could be partly a data problem, since some of the data in last year's study contradicts itself. It could partly be a model problem because of some missing physical mechanisms."

Posted by John Kranz at 6:28 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

By "settled" science don't they mean that they know what is happening?

"In the Northern Atlantic, there is cooling and warming data the (climate change) community hasn't been able to figure out," says Liu.

But perhaps there is consensus on something.

"The fundamental laws of physics say that as the temperature goes up, it has to get warmer," Liu says.

But certainly not everything. Or even, really, much of anything.

"Both communities have to look back critically and see what is missing," he [Liu] says. "I think it is a puzzle."

Dang, the DAWG illuminati really had better get this Liu character back on the reservation, and quick. There is definitely way too much plain and clear speaking going on here.

Posted by: johngalt at August 12, 2014 7:00 PM

July 19, 2014

Oy! Aussies Ditch Caaabon Taxes!

Mary Kissel suggests conviction might work here.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott fulfilled a major campaign pledge Thursday when his government voted to repeal the country's carbon tax, provoking wailing from the political left and green groups about climate Armageddon. The smarter analysis is that Mr. Abbott proved that conviction politicians are rewarded when their ideas have economic merit--and are clearly explained--to the electorate. Republicans should take note.

Australia's conservative Liberal Party started to embrace the questionable science of man-made climate change under former Prime Minister John Howard, and the trend continued after the Liberals lost the 2007 national election. Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull, a wealthy banker who hails from one of Sydney's toniest suburbs, had the Liberals endorse the Labor government's carbon-tax proposal. Predictably, the Liberals went nowhere in the polls.

Ordinary Aussies, as it turns out, hated the idea of having their energy prices raised so that elites in Melbourne and other urban centers could feel good about themselves.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:25 PM | Comments (0)

July 9, 2014

Quote of the Day

Gotta sting a bit.

A true revolution would be a new breed of climate activist who admitted what they didn't know and toned down their absurd pretense that they're going to ban or seriously curb fossil fuel by fiat. If they were smart, they would put all their effort into winning government funding for battery research. But there are reasons, quite apart from lack of imagination, which is the nicest explanation of Mr. Steyer's shrill imposture, that this doesn't happen.

Our political system is adept at making use of people like Mr. Steyer. Democrats will gladly spend his $100 million, then go back to their real environmental business, which is green cronyism. Happily Mr. Steyer's fate won't be that of the Hemingway character [in "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber"] --who finally got to prove his merit while accidentally being shot in the head by his wife. But like Al Gore before him, Mr. Steyer will be able to say of his impact on the climate debate: I softened up the public to be milked for green handouts that did nothing for climate change. -- Homan Jenkins

Posted by John Kranz at 12:18 PM | Comments (2)
But AndyN thinks:

I'm going to have a hard time taking a guy seriously if he thinks that Francis Macomber was shot accidentally.

Posted by: AndyN at July 9, 2014 4:37 PM
But jk thinks:

"But how is one to know about an American?"

Posted by: jk at July 9, 2014 5:00 PM

June 29, 2014

The new Eco-Incandescent light bulbs are here!

Just when you thought you'd never again see a good-old light bulb because that mean nasty government made them illegal, geniuses at GE and Philips have found a way to make them all over again. [Thomas Edison - call your office.] They're called "eco-incandescent."

This is news, because they just hit the market, but it isn't a surprise as I explained it in a January 2011 blog post comment after carefully reading the 2007 federal law that "banned the light bulb." Bulbs could only be sold if they were more efficient than standard bulbs by, if I remember correctly, at least 20 percent. The new eco-incandescents are (magically) 28% more efficient.


They are also (less magically) several hundred percent more expensive. Thanks mean, nasty government!

Back in 2011 I accused lamp makers of manipulating the market via regulation, so that "Competitors can no longer undercut each other's cheapest products and saturate the market with them." But Hank Rearden, or is it the Chinese, is not deterred. "Eco-Smart" brand bulbs undercut more expensive models by GE and Philips. Depending on wattage, they are one to two bucks each.

What a country!

Posted by JohnGalt at 10:38 AM | Comments (2)
But jk thinks:

I hate to criticize my blog brothers on something as picayune as category choice, but. I think you left out We're from the government and we're here to help.

Who but gub'mint could bring us a 60 Watt bulb that uses only 43 Watts (and costs a buck and a quarter). The stupid! It hurts!

Posted by: jk at July 1, 2014 9:31 AM
But johngalt thinks:

Fair cop. I should have reflexively added "WFTGAWHTH" after typing the words "what a country!"

Posted by: johngalt at July 1, 2014 11:37 AM

June 20, 2014

Popper on Climate Change

I've promised a Review Corner on Bryan Magee's Philosophy and the Real World: An Introduction to Karl Popper. By sheer accident, I read, in series, three books about/by three great early/mid 20th Century thinkers: Chesterton, Popper and Orwell. I've light-bending respect for each but feel they have made errors that were particular to their time.

My original objections to Global Warming were based on Popperian epistemology. Reading Magee's superb introduction I am reminded how germane his arguments are against DAWG.

To prevent Review Corner's becoming about Climate Change, I want to do a separate post. Popper codified what we call scientific method. Fascinating that he developed a full blown philosophy on top, but if nothing else he provides a description of how scientific knowledge advances.

As I said earlier, Popper recommends that we formulate our theories in as clearcut a way as possible, so as to expose them most unambiguously to refutation. And at the methodological level we should not, he says, (see page 19) systematically evade refutation by continually reformulating either our theory or our evidence in order to keep the two in accord. This is what many Marxists do, and many psychoanalysts. Thus they are substituting dogmatism for science while claiming to be scientific. A scientific theory is not one which explains everything that can possibly happen: on the contrary, it rules out most of what could possibly happen, and is therefore itself ruled out if what it rules out happens. So a genuinely scientific theory places itself permanently at risk. And here we come to Popper's answer to the question raised at the beginning of this chapter. Falsifiability is the criterion of demarcation between science and non-science.

Popper has a front row seat to the 30 years that shook Physics and the brainpower to understand advances in relativity and quantum theory. What I read from a textbook happened in real-time to Popper. Newtonian mechanics, which described the world for hundreds of years (I'd suggest it had better than a 97% consensus) was superseded by Relativity. At the same time, Marx, Engels and Freud claim the scientific mantle for their theories. As Popper sang, "one of these things is not like the other one:"
On 29th May the observations were made. And they corroborated Einstein's theory. Other theories which claimed to be scientific and were at the height of intellectual fashion in the Vienna of Popper's youth, such as those of Freud and Adler, did not, and could not be made to, put their lives at stake in this way. No conceivable observations could contradict them. They would explain whatever occurred (though differently). And Popper saw that their ability to explain everything, which so convinced and excited their adherents, was precisely what was most wrong with them.

Climate Science explains everything and no theory since Freud's Id, Ego and Superego has ever been less falsifiable. It is cold, Climate Change; it is hot Climate Change; floods, fires, hurricanes, more ice, less ice...

There is no May 29 for Climate. Every year it seems we read another experiment on a phenomenon suggested by Relativity. New clocks and lasers and rockets have provided a century of May 29ths -- and Albert's predictions have always come up on top.

UPDATE: It is frequently May 29 in Cosmology: Big Bang breakthrough team allows they may be wrong

Posted by John Kranz at 10:55 AM | Comments (0)

June 17, 2014

Bringing their organizational skill to environmentalism!

After they have solved that, I think the VA might move onto childhood obesity and a definitive proof of the Reimann Hypothesis. (Hat-tip: Jim Geraghty)

Posted by John Kranz at 10:34 AM | Comments (0)

May 23, 2014

Their Appeal is "Becoming More Selective"

[CNN President Jeff Zucker] told Bill Carter of the New York Times: "Climate change is one of those stories that deserves more attention, that we all talk about. But we haven't figured out how to engage the audience in that story in a meaningful way. When we do do those stories, there does tend to be a tremendous amount of lack of interest on the audience's part." -- John Fund
A tremendous amount of lack of interest! Those Spinal Tap lads cannot rise to that.
Posted by John Kranz at 10:38 AM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

If "climate change" really did "deserve more attention" they would run the weather report in the A-block.

Posted by: johngalt at May 23, 2014 11:23 AM

May 22, 2014

Quote of the Day

In choosing to spend money in just Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan, ["Hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer, who made money from fossil fuels but now seeks to prevent others from doing the same"]'s NextGen is steering clear of most of the battleground states that will decide control of the U.S. Senate. The organization says that it wants to bring the climate issue "to the forefront of American politics" and presents itself as an opponent of "special interest groups" but it seems to be taking pains to avoid the many places where general interest groups, i.e. voters, favor cheap energy. NextGen apparently has no plans to play in tight races in Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, or North Carolina, partly because in many of those places even Democratic candidates are at least pretending to favor energy production. -- James Freeman, WSJ Ed Page
Posted by John Kranz at 12:15 PM | Comments (0)

May 21, 2014

On Science

I am working on a new "Elevator Talk" for Climate Change (or DAWG, as it 's known around these parts). The issue is still politically fraught with peril -- every day, my Facebook includes Sen. Mark Udall's asking Rep. Cory Gardner to "sign his petition affirming climate change." It is a crude distraction from ObamaCare®, but don't think crude does not work [insert random Mencken quote here...]

My position has evolved somewhat over the years: not enough to effect policy, but I have softened pari passu with that big Antarctic sheet of ice.

"So, jk, on a scale from 0-10 where zero is 'it's a hoax' and ten is 'metaphysical certitude: we're all gonna die!' where do you stand on Climate Change?"

Does it have to be an integer? I'd say about 4.5 [Who is unreasonable now, baby? I'm a moderate!] Hoax requires mens rea and I will accept that a preponderance of the scientists are genuinely concerned. Politicians probably run the spectrum from following along to "yes, this'll meet my needs," but I'll accept the scientific concern as legitimate.

That gets me to two.

The science of Physics suggests a 1.3° C temperature rise to accompany a doubling in atmospheric CO2. I'm a big fan of Physics -- I have all their albums [pause for laughter as needed here...] Seriously, that is well founded and experimentally reproducible. I accept, therefore, a projected 1.3 degrees of man made warming over the next 50 years.

I think that gets me to four.

Now, the practitioners of climate science take that 1.3 degrees and multiply like a Keynesian at an all-you-can-eat buffet. They show, through computer modeling, that as it gets warmer, there will be more barbecues, and people will eat more meat, and that increased bovine flatulence will raise the temperature 300 degrees and we'll all broil. Okay, it is not that bad, but they are taking fundamentally good science and taking some liberties with it.

The climate science, unlike the physics, is not reproducible or empirically provable.. In fact, the experiment we call the real world diverges substantively from their models.

This puts all the numbers >= five off limits.

But there is a beta, if I can borrow from finance. There is a non-zero chance that they are right. The introduction of more heat to a complex, chaotic system could start a cycle of warming. I multiply the very small beta of probability by the very large coefficient of suckage should this transpire and get 0.5: ergo 4.5.

SecState Kerry suggests that there is no great cost to overreaction and great costs to under reaction. I purport the exact opposite.

If I -- and Physics -- am right, there is a 1.3 rise, which is well within normal fluctuations. Nobody would have noticed had VP Gore won Florida in 2000 and had other things to spend his time on than movies. If I am wrong, don't we want to be richer and smarter? If we waste our time and innovation on government-directed green boondoggles, we will not have the technology or resources to really tackle it if it is bad.

Well, that's it. I've had this in my head for a few days, but was inspired to try it reading the Guest essay by Steven Burnett on the site. Burnett has a degree in Psychology and one in Chemistry. He compares the rigor of soft and hard science.

If I may wax poetic for a moment, the hard sciences are like a rock while the soft sciences are like sand. They are fundamentally composed of the same stuff, but it's the structure that makes them different. You must find a comfortable spot to rest on the rock but sand conforms around you. An uncomfortable rock must be dealt with, sand can simply be brushed away. Rock climbing requires training and equipment, a walk on the beach does not. I have had the opportunity to do both, and from personal experience, rock climbing is both harder and more fulfilling.

UPDATE: In case this post wasn't long enough for you... But I had to share the WSJ Ed Page's answer to Sec. Kerry:
The "worst that can happen" is that we spend trillions of dollars trying to solve a problem that we can't do anything to stop; that we misallocate scarce resources in a way that slows economic growth; that slower growth leads to less economic opportunity for Boston College grads and especially the world's poor, and that America and the world become much less wealthy and technologically advanced than we would otherwise. All of which would make the world less able to cope with the costs of climate change if Mr. Kerry is right.


Having read your thoughtful response concerning MMGW wherein you begin with a "0" to"10" what if, and end with a coolly (warmly?) calculated "4.5", I wish to perhaps precipitate a thaw in your math.

There are three distinct areas of focus, however blurred, for a consciousness. They are ideas, things, and people.

The hallmark of the first is the imagination. It is preoccupied with, in addition to whatever may arise to temporarily occupy its focus, envisioned (visionary?) manifestations of "what ifs."

The second area of focus are "things." The hallmark of this consciousness is curiosity. What, how, and why, are perpetual questions to which such a consciousness endlessly seeks answers.

The third area is people. The hallmark of this consciousness, when whatever imagination (ideas) or curiosity (things) might have initially been at play is/are determined to be of relatively little value, it invariably chooses people as the objects of its focus. The hallmark of such a consciousness is politics.

Of course we each are, in differing proportions, amalgamations of all three. On one end of the spectrum lies the occasional Einstein, exploring the intergalactic vortex while working as a clerk in the patent office, never losing sight of his reverence for science and the requirement that his imagination can only become validated when confirmed by reality.

Representing the other extreme, the likes of Barrack Obama, who, apparently never having had an original thought in his life, merely adapted to playing the political game in which he found himself at birth, consistently through to its current manifestations.

The rise of the idea of man-caused destruction of the Earth is the product of politics. It has no basis in actual science itself, and little in its relatively new and larger arena of science, Climatology.

However, since its political postulation, first as MMGC in the early seventies, then as MMGW, recently MMCC, to now, where I indicated at the last LOTR meeting I heard the first snippets of MMCD (disruption replacing change - the boring and virtually imperceptible pace of change giving way to the far more dramatic and dire term, DISRUPTION ((film at eleven!)), the proponents have been joined by sincere and credible consciousnesses who are honestly trying to investigate said claims. To the extent these additional voices remain credible, and are not shown to be seeking renewed funding or new Grant money, they tend to provide a veneer of respectability to what was/is, on its face, a "modern" vehicle for the destruction of individual freedom and Capitalism.

Now, I do not wish to be what I am arguing against. I always remain open to the possibility that the claim of MMCI (influence replacing whatever might be the latest fashion) is in fact occurring. One of the nasty traits of we humans is that certainty stops inquiry. However, I insist that the motivation for inquiry be imagination or curiosity, not arising from the sewer of politics!

The high priests of the "settled science" of MMCI are certain of their inquiry, and denounce, demean, or discredit, any heresy to the contrary. I therefore am resting comfortably at a .0014, awaiting further demonstrable, repeatable, evidence - not simply the computer modeling of premises.

Dave, the denounced, demeaned, "discredited" denier, Walden

Posted by John Kranz at 10:00 AM | Comments (5)
But johngalt thinks:

Not evil, just wrong. Whether they know they're wrong or are just myopic, they're wrong. They ignore the buffering effect of water vapor or, as Sonny Bunch explains it, the Godzilla effect.

So what part of this can be explained on the elevator ride? The "I'm a moderate" part? ;)

Posted by: johngalt at May 21, 2014 1:48 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Besides, you'll never get a more convincing elevator speech than, "Because, science." And everything you're associated with "sucks balls" if you dare to try.

Posted by: johngalt at May 21, 2014 2:19 PM
But jk thinks:

[I interrupt this thread with some very good news. We have successfully recruited a new blogger to ThreeSources. Dave is a frequent Liberty on the Rocks - Flatirons guest. He and often vie for who gets the first question in, but his are better.

I'll wait until the lawyers sign-off before formal announcements, but here is the kind of discourse we'll be seeing 'round these parts -- jk]

Having read your thoughtful response concerning MMGW wherein you begin with a "0" to"10" what if, and end with a coolly (warmly?) calculated "4.5", I wish to perhaps precipitate a thaw in your math.

There are three distinct areas of focus, however blurred, for a consciousness. They are ideas, things, and people.

The hallmark of the first is the imagination. It is preoccupied with, in addition to whatever may arise to temporarily occupy its focus, envisioned (visionary?) manifestations of "what ifs."

The second area of focus are "things." The hallmark of this consciousness is curiosity. What, how, and why, are perpetual questions to which such a consciousness endlessly seeks answers.

The third area is people. The hallmark of this consciousness, when whatever imagination (ideas) or curiosity (things) might have initially been at play is/are determined to be of relatively little value, it invariably chooses people as the objects of its focus. The hallmark of such a consciousness is politics.

Of course we each are, in differing proportions, amalgamations of all three. On one end of the spectrum lies the occasional Einstein, exploring the intergalactic vortex while working as a clerk in the patent office, never losing sight of his reverence for science and the requirement that his imagination can only become validated when confirmed by reality.

Representing the other extreme, the likes of Barrack Obama, who, apparently never having had an original thought in his life, merely adapted to playing the political game in which he found himself at birth, consistently through to its current manifestations.

The rise of the idea of man-caused destruction of the Earth is the product of politics. It has no basis in actual science itself, and little in its relatively new and larger arena of science, Climatology.

However, since its political postulation, first as MMGC in the early seventies, then as MMGW, recently MMCC, to now, where I indicated at the last LOTR meeting I heard the first snippets of MMCD (disruption replacing change - the boring and virtually imperceptible pace of change giving way to the far more dramatic and dire term, DISRUPTION ((film at eleven!)), the proponents have been joined by sincere and credible consciousnesses who are honestly trying to investigate said claims. To the extent these additional voices remain credible, and are not shown to be seeking renewed funding or new Grant money, they tend to provide a veneer of respectability to what was/is, on its face, a "modern" vehicle for the destruction of individual freedom and Capitalism.

Now, I do not wish to be what I am arguing against. I always remain open to the possibility that the claim of MMCI (influence replacing whatever might be the latest fashion) is not in fact occurring. One of the nasty traits of we humans is that certainty stops inquiry. However, I insist that the motivation for inquiry be imagination or curiosity, not arising from the sewer of politics!

The high priests of the "settled science" of MMCI are certain of their inquiry, and denounce, demean, or discredit, any heresy to the contrary. I therefore am resting comfortably at a .0014, awaiting further demonstrable, repeatable, evidence - not simply the computer modeling of premises.

Dave, the denounced, demeaned, "discredited" denier, Walden

Posted by: jk at May 21, 2014 5:57 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Welcome to the page! Racist. /sarcasm ;)

Posted by: johngalt at May 21, 2014 6:09 PM
But johngalt thinks:


Posted by: johngalt at May 22, 2014 3:43 PM

May 12, 2014

Weather is Not Climate!!!


Umm, six?

Posted by John Kranz at 10:39 AM | Comments (0)

May 5, 2014

Everything there is to be said.

I've been trying to make this point on Facebook. Today it has been taken up superbly by Caleb Rossier, who has "[S]pent my life on the foreign-policy left. I opposed the Vietnam War, U.S. intervention in Central America in the 1980s and our invasion of Iraq. I have headed a group trying to block U.S. arms and training for "friendly" dictators, and I have written books about how U.S. policy in the developing world is neocolonial. But I oppose my allies' well-meaning campaign for 'climate justice.'"

Every year environmental groups celebrate a night when institutions in developed countries (including my own university) turn off their lights as a protest against fossil fuels. They say their goal is to get America and Europe to look from space like Africa: dark, because of minimal energy use.

But that is the opposite of what's desired by Africans I know. They want Africa at night to look like the developed world, with lights in every little village and with healthy people, living longer lives, sitting by those lights. Real years added to real lives should trump the minimal impact that African carbon emissions could have on a theoretical catastrophe.
And I oppose the campaign even more for trying to deny to Africans the reliable electricity--and thus the economic development and extended years of life--that fossil fuels can bring.

But, but, but...

Posted by John Kranz at 7:07 PM | Comments (5)
But johngalt thinks:

Carbon emission is the absolute epitome of First World Problems.

Aren't you glad that western civilization has solved so many problems that the next most important one to some folks is "we make more CO2 than plants need?"

Personally, it's way further down on my list.

Posted by: johngalt at May 6, 2014 12:00 PM
But jk thinks:

Love the locution "instead of making us look like Africa, I wish they'd worry about making Africa look like us."

I actually reached a Facebook Friend. Once. One day -- I'm sure he'll get over it. But he said "you know, you're right (my four favorite words), I can afford an extra $20-40 a month but [in this case poor Chinese] cannot."

Posted by: jk at May 6, 2014 12:49 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Even better, he said Africans themselves want Africa to look like the west. Who are we to say, as did John Feffer,

that "even if the mercury weren't rising" we should bring "the developing world into the postindustrial age in a sustainable manner." He sees the "climate crisis [as] precisely the giant lever with which we can, following Archimedes, move the world in a greener, more equitable direction."

Feffer as much as admits that "catastrophic" climate change is no more than a means to an end. And end that may be greener and more equal, but is also poorer, and brutish, and short.

A good starting point with every individual FB friend should be to ask if he agrees that:

The left wants to stop industrialization ‚ÄĒ even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false.

You're either with us or you're with the "equal but miserable" crowd. If you choose the latter, we have nothing more to discuss.

Posted by: johngalt at May 6, 2014 3:14 PM
But johngalt thinks:

And my four favorite words?
"You know, Rand's right."

Posted by: johngalt at May 6, 2014 4:08 PM
But jk thinks:

Perhaps "'nother breve cappuccino jk?"

Posted by: jk at May 6, 2014 4:28 PM

April 21, 2014


Talmey-Drake Research and Strategy Inc. said in a written report to the county [Boulder, CO] that focus groups have shown that "support for alternative transportation efforts is driven not by what would get a person out of their own car, but by the hope those programs get others out of their cars so the roads are less congested for them as they continue to drive."

Wow, who saw that coming? Certainly not the people who wrote this:

By investing in such programs as those that support cycling, walking, car pooling and public transportation, "Boulder County strives to make it easier for people to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on fossil fuels, while conserving natural resources and living an active, healthy lifestyle," the county said in a report detailing its sustainability programs.

But what if people don't want those things?

Here's my prediction: Boulder County residents will get the least popular "alternative-transportation program:" Making personal transportation advisers available to advise residents and businesses on how to shorten commutes and reduce car use. That'll get their heads right.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:30 PM | Comments (0)

April 10, 2014

Climate Scientists "on Strike?"

If only! In 'What if a climate scientist fell in the forest" Eric Golub writes,
Very rarely does somebody inadvertently do such a spectacular job of making the opposing sideís case. Thomas Piketty did it day before yesterday, and Bill McKibben did it, well, last month.

"So at this point it's absurd to keep asking the scientific community to churn out more reports. In fact, it might almost be more useful if they went on strike: until you pay attention to what we've already told you, we wonít be telling you more."
This guy thinks we are children, afraid to live without mommy and daddy (or mommy1 and mommy2) here to watch over us. Go ahead, climate scientists, "go Galt." We'll manage.

These more frequent illustrations of the nannyists disconnection from reality are some of the things that make me more optimistic that humanity is not doomed to return to pre-history.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:32 PM | Comments (0)

March 20, 2014

Got Yer Microcosm Right Here..

Insty nails it: "Putin was changing the map while Europe was saving the climate."

Liz Peek, The Fiscal Times:

Europe has had nearly a decade -- since Moscow cut off gas supplies to the region for the first time -- to ready itself for renewed Russian misbehavior, but has been caught as flatfooted as Obama. Instead of reducing their dependence on gas from Ukraine and Russia, the leaders of Western Europe have chosen to combat climate change. Instead of investing in secure energy, the EU has invested in green energy, driving up energy costs, reducing competitiveness, and allowing Putin to remain in the driver's seat.

By "Europe" we can certainly throw in Sec. John Kerry who still calls Climate Change the greatest threat. The Administration could permit LNG exports, approve the Keystone Pipeline, permit fracking on Federal Lands and tell the free world that America has your back.

I'm not calling for Destroyers in the Black Sea or missiles in Poland, just actions that are in our interest whatever Iran, Russia, or Saudi Arabia chooses.

And I call it a microcosm because I don't think my Facebook friends would argue with how I've laid out the board. Most would be very comfortable arguing that Sec. Kerry and the Administration are doing the right thing and that the German Greens have a longer world view than we goofy Cold Warriors.

UPDATE: In completely unrelated news, Jim Geraghty brings us the President's Thursday Schedule: President Obama to make first appearance on 'Ellen'

Posted by John Kranz at 10:19 AM | Comments (5)
But Terri thinks:

JK for President 2016! (except for the vetting....)

Posted by: Terri at March 20, 2014 11:15 AM
But jk thinks:

You're too kind. I'll just zip up all my ThreeSources blog posts so that I can email them to oppo research.

Posted by: jk at March 20, 2014 12:10 PM
But johngalt thinks:

What. Are. You. Talking. About?

Don't they have wind and solar power in Ukraine already? If they aren't prepared for the end of the black energy economy it's their own stupid fault! @#(7ing green-energy grasshoppers.

Threesources: More like Facebook every day!

Posted by: johngalt at March 20, 2014 12:49 PM
But jk thinks:

That should really be our official tagline.

Posted by: jk at March 20, 2014 1:22 PM
But jk thinks:

That or dagny's RAH quote: "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks."

Posted by: jk at March 20, 2014 1:24 PM

March 13, 2014

Colorado Democrats' Anti-Frac Front is, well, Fracturing

Valerie Richardson in The Colorado Observer:

"You look at the kind of Democrats who have been elected in the last few election cycles, and they are to the left, way to the left of center in Colorado, and they'll support this fracking ban," said Wadhams.

The Democratic Party's ability to keep its far left in line and avoid fractious battles on issues has helped it win the support of the business community, which values political stability. That could change if business leaders suspect Democrats are aligned with the anti-fracking forces.

"So you're watching the fracturing of the base, but also as important, theyíre going to alienate the business community and [even] the progressive business community," said Ciruli. "I don't think those people won't give to Hickenlooper, but they might not give to these Democratic Senate campaigns."

So Hick might still get donations but his base will not be behind him.

Posted by JohnGalt at 4:20 PM | Comments (0)

March 11, 2014

Post to Polis: Frack Off

Pinch me!

Still, the more gas is available worldwide, the less leverage Putin will have in bullying neighbors and in talks with European powers such as Germany, which also depends on Russian gas.

That's the Denver Post Editorial Board speaking. And if that doesn't sound enough like the words of Republicans Cory Gardner and Rand Paul [starting at 5:00], among many others, the Post continues:

Not everyone agrees, of course. Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., was among 20 House Democrats last fall who wrote to the energy secretary expressing concern LNG exports "would lead to greater hydraulic fracturing activity," which is probably true. But we would hope most members of Congress appreciate that fracking can be done safely, and that America's new energy bounty offers a huge opportunity to assist pro-Western governments abroad.

Read more: Liquefied natural gas as a geopolitical tool - The Denver Post
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content:
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

Take that, Democrat.

Posted by JohnGalt at 11:18 AM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

What do you expect from a party that would nominate an "anti-civil rights, anti-choice, anti-marriage equality" troglodyte to the Federal Bench?

Polis was on "The Independants" last night (Libertario Delenda Est has its own TV show and it is Purdy good). The topic was Bitcoin and he gets a sympathetic audience on the show. He can point to great libertarian bona fides.

Yet he gets a pass on his reliable votes for dirigisme because he pens the occasional liberty-friendly OpEd.

Posted by: jk at March 11, 2014 11:56 AM

March 4, 2014

Quote of the Day

The warming alarmists might earn more support if they acted less like they had something to hide and actually allowed open debate. Perhaps they could respond to their critics rationally instead of reflexively branding them heretics, suitable for whatever is the modern university and research center equivalent of burning at the stake. Real science does not fear those who challenge it, does not work to have challengers' articles banned from science journals, and does not compare skeptics to Holocaust deniers or, as Mr. Kerry did in Jakarta, members of the "Flat Earth Society."

A movement with confidence in its scientific theories would be able to admit there are many climate factors beyond carbon dioxide that are not yet well understood, and that some climate models have been shown to be unreliable. Such a movement would not downplay or whitewash leaked emails evincing the possibility of massaged data. When it criticizes its skeptics as hired guns of the fossil-fuel industry who are influenced by money, it would be willing to acknowledge that it thrives on government and private funding that would shrink if its research did not continue to say warming is here and getting worse. And there would be more confessions such as Al Gore's belated acknowledgment that his support for ethanol was misguided. -- Pete du Pont

Posted by John Kranz at 5:33 PM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

It strikes me that an actual flat-earther would be treated to far more scientific inquiry: "Well, how do you account for ..." Nobody would say "97% of geologists have concluded ..."

Posted by: jk at March 4, 2014 7:29 PM

March 1, 2014

Something of worth from the DAWG Crusade?


A hybrid aircraft, this goofy looking vehicle is capable of heavy lifting and long flight times thanks to the buoyancy of helium gas. The UK Telegraph article that describes it touts its "low carbon" and "green" attributes. I call it a possibly cost-effective vehicle for heavy transport and other specialized uses - provided it is economical in its use of the non-renewable commodity, helium gas.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:18 PM | Comments (4)
But jk thinks:

Mmmmmkay, but am I alone in thinking all the "Green" accomplishments always harken back to centuries-old technology repurposed?

All the things we gave up are suddenly brand new. My buddy, JC, gets angry every time I bring up Karl Poppers "back to the caves," but green tech always seems more "Downton Abbey" than Star Trek TNG.

Posted by: jk at March 2, 2014 1:56 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:

If the whole heavy-haul thing doesn't pan out, they can always use it to drop promo coupons over arenas.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at March 3, 2014 10:22 AM
But AndyN thinks:

You have a point, JK, but it's also true that there are perfectly good uses for old technology that were set aside in favor of something more flashy but no more effective.

When I saw someone trying to push renewed use of lighter than air craft it reminded me that at least as recently as the mid-80s the British Army was teaching young paratroopers to fall out of the sky by putting them in a balloon tethered to a winch, unwinding a few hundred feet of cable, and ushering them out the door. At the same point in the training cycle, the US Army was fueling up a C-130 and flying new paratroopers from Georgia to Alabama, then loading them in deuce and a halfs and driving them back.

I don't think markets necessarily have the patience to wait for that new hybrid aircraft to make deliveries, but I'd be surprised if there weren't commercial uses for something that just needs to go more-or-less straight up and come straight back down. Does a local traffic reporter really need to burn helicopter fuel, or would sitting in a balloon with a big lens work? How close together would the border patrol have to put balloons to monitor the entire US/Mexico border (assuming an alternate universe where the US border patrol actually wanted to monitor the border)?

And of course, let's not forget that while they're pushing all sorts of centuries-old technology that doesn't really work all that well, but from which political contributions can be wrung, they're banning the centuries-old use of wood, coal and tungsten to effectively create heat, electricity and light.

Posted by: AndyN at March 3, 2014 11:03 AM
But johngalt thinks:

Good commentary all around. I liked it mostly as an engineering achievement. The application of hauling goods into Canada's Northern Territories and taking away some Ice Road Trucker business, I thought was a good one.

As long as its development is privately funded it is likely to meet market needs. To the extent it is government funded, it is doomed to be an expensive failure.

Posted by: johngalt at March 3, 2014 2:56 PM

February 26, 2014

I just responded to an Upworthy Post with a TED talk!

Me. I feel dirty. You know the kind of person who responds to an post with a TED talk? Don't tell the folks at ThreeSources, they'll revoke your login . . .

But a not-overwhelmingly-political young person I know posted this:


I did not want to start a Facebook war with this person. But "Upworthy Lad" (kindof "Pajama Boy" with no hot chocolate) claims this has been around for years and nobody has refuted it. And, that grates on me.

Watch if you want, but it is the precautionary principle wrapped up for Facebook crowd. Obviously, the action to prevent something is less damaging: we trade a flu shot for flu, we do not amputate our arms to reduce hangnails. So, we don't know about global warming but it could be really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really bad. So we should "prevent it."

I responded: "You're not driving into work today, are you? The worst that could happen if you stay home is your boss yells at you -- but you could be in a horrific car accident and lose your head! All because you were afraid of getting yelled at..."

But I responded because (Internet Segue Alert) the TED talk linked in my Arnold Kling Post makes a better point. Upworthy Lad no doubt thinks we'll fix it by buying LED light bulbs and driving Priuses. When really "His top left square is not some beta risk of Depression, but 2-4 billion people doing their own washing and burning dung to keep warm."

Posted by John Kranz at 3:00 PM | Comments (0)

February 19, 2014

Speaking of Anti-Poverty Policy...

That is one of the two "biggest challenges facing the world in the 21st century" according to Patrick McCulley at international rivers dot org, who posted [in 2004] Twelve Reasons to Exclude Large Hydro From Renewables Initiatives. Spoiler alert: None of the 12 reasons is "Large hydro is non-renewable." To the contrary, reason #12 admits that it is, precisely, renewable:

12 - Large hydro reservoirs are often rendered non-renewable by sedimentation

Dam reservoirs are depleted over time by sedimentation, a problem that eventually
seriously impedes or ends the ability of a hydro plant to produce electricity. The
great majority of annual sediment loads are carried during flood periods. The high-
er intensity and frequency of floods due to global warming are therefore likely to
increase sedimentation rates and thus further shorten the useful lives of reservoirs.

No word on the required maintenance or "useful lives" of wind, solar or small hydro.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:04 PM | Comments (2)
But jk thinks:

D'ja see Jon Caldera on this? If water and gravity are "renewable" then we make all the quotas and cannot continue the graft to wind & solar providers.

Posted by: jk at February 19, 2014 7:53 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Precisely. And that is, unapologetically, the direct basis for "reasons" number 1 and 2 and indirect basis for numbers 5 and 8 of the twelve, as stated in the summary list created by International Rivers Network in Berkeley.

Posted by: johngalt at February 20, 2014 1:09 PM

February 17, 2014


Probably some Koch Brothers plant, spreading this scurrilous lie that extreme weather cannot be tied to climate change:

"There continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale."

Oh, wait, that's the IPCC report. Pretty much the gold standard for climate science... And
Hereís what a paper published by 17 senior IPCC scientists from five different countries said last month:
"It has not been possible to attribute rain-generated peak streamflow trends to anthropogenic climate change over the past several decades."

Thanks to Rational Optimist Matt Ridley for Floods and gales in the UK are not evidence of climate change. And to blog friend tg for a Facebook post of Ridley's (also excellent) Science discovers new ignorance about the past

Posted by John Kranz at 7:09 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

Hard to imagine they've given up the cause. These citations are on par with: The words "no act of terrorism" uttered in the Rose Garden means "I can claim I called it terrorism from the beginning" when my present lie of expediency is finally revealed. My dad always referred to this as "knitting an asshole cover."

Posted by: johngalt at February 18, 2014 1:53 PM

February 12, 2014

On Science and Faith in Politics

Think carefully for a moment about the phrase, "The science is settled." That would make the issue in question an "absolute" would it not? And absolutism is what Democrats of all flavors most often criticize Republicans for believing.

This is the topic of an entertaining column by Andrew Quinn at The Federalist. The fun begins with his headline: "The Party of Science Has Absolutely No Clue What It's Talking About."

To an intellectually honest observer, these findings compel more questions. What are reasonable expectations for health insurance? Should we be satisfied if Medicaid helps people sleep easier but makes them no healthier? Even if so, is health insurance the most effective way to convert taxpayer dollars into peace of mind for the poor?

Virtually no prominent progressives join center-right commentators in positing such questions.

Because, like most people, progressives are more comfortable with facts that agree with how their mind is already made up. But there is a difference between progressives and the rest of us: They have so convinced themselves that theirs is an ideology rooted in objective science, and any contradictory ideology is rooted in Revealed Truth, that they don't even recognize when their ideology becomes exactly that - an article of faith.

So the next time a Facebook friend tells you his ideas are scientific be sure to ask him for his Hypothesis, Evidence and Analysis that support his Conclusion. If you are sufficiently skeptical he will eventually balk. Then you can ask him to who's authority he is subservient. After all, "consensus" is just another way of saying "I don't want to know any more than I already know." And isn't that why they like to laugh at the Religious Right?

Posted by JohnGalt at 4:51 PM | Comments (4)
But jk thinks:

Keen insight. Hear hear.

Seriously, I saw this and wanted to do something. You did it sooner and better. The only thing missing is the photo of Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson. Now ThreeSourcers will just have to click.

I had called those two out by name in a comment. Blog friend tg claimed that "scientists" were not at fault in overhyping DAWG, that it was "environmentalists" misusing them.

Posted by: jk at February 12, 2014 6:52 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Inasmuch as it's often impossible to separate the environmentalist from the scientist, you're both right.

Posted by: johngalt at February 12, 2014 7:08 PM
But jk thinks:


Posted by: jk at February 13, 2014 10:18 AM
But johngalt thinks:

Heh. I prefer to call myself "uniter, not divider."

Posted by: johngalt at February 14, 2014 5:29 PM

February 7, 2014

I think that ThreeSourcers might dig this.

Will The Overselling Of Global Warming Lead To A New Scientific Dark Age?

That's the question being posed in the latest issue of an Australian literary journal, Quadrant, by Garth Paltridge, one of the world's most respected atmospheric scientists. [Paltridge:]
It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society's respect for scientific endeavour.

Another serious scientist joins the good guys. Nice. But what I really enjoyed is his portrayal of climate scientists: Paltridge, again:
A new and rewarding research lifestyle emerged which involved the giving of advice to all types and levels of government, the broadcasting of unchallengeable opinion to the general public, and easy justification for attendance at international conferences--this last in some luxury by normal scientific experience, and at a frequency previously unheard of.

Anybody who has ever had his lunch bought by a Koch Brother or received a paycheck from Exxon is not to be included in the conversation. But flying first class to Davos to meet the Vice President and stay in a five star hotel is somehow just part of living for an academic.

I have always tried to point out that either way, the oil company scientists are going to have a job. But if climate change is anything less than boiling oil catastrophe on a stick: the researchers are going to have to get real jobs.

Posted by John Kranz at 1:35 PM | Comments (6)
But johngalt thinks:

Hmmm. I have said exactly this, on these pages, and even went looking for the citations. Perhaps it was the suggestion that science may lose favor "perhaps for centuries" that reminded me of the obvious fact - man needs science. Modern man, especially. There are bedfellows behind the "climate science tsunami" and, as the author observed, "the average man in the street ... is bginning to suspect that it is politics rather than science which is driving the issue."

The obvious culprit in this pseudo-science hoax is government. Come to think of it, even the EPA is allowing its strings to be pulled by a non-governmental puppet master - the United Nations' "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." A non-representative bureaucracy created, in part, by the United Nations Environment Programme, established in 1972 and headquartered in Kenya for the purposes of "assisting developing countries in implementing environmentally sound policies and practices." This is who claims to "know" that the prosperous western countries need to be taxed more so as to mitigate deleterious consequences to the developing nations. No conflicts of interest there, boy howdy. Nosiree.

The answer to the problem is two-fold:

1) Enforce a separation of science and state at least as vigorously as a separation of church and state.

2) Respect the tangible rights of individuals as a bedrock principle at all times, and especially when engaging in a fanciful quest for some sort of common good.

Posted by: johngalt at February 7, 2014 5:09 PM
But jk thinks:

No doubt you said it, brah. But I just figured you were a Koch Brothers plant...

Posted by: jk at February 7, 2014 5:33 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Well we'll just have to conclude that scientific prestige will suffer, its magnitude and duration proportional to the degree it remains linked with politics.

This makes the author's advice "Scientists, run for cover ... NOW" well founded. Alas, we're still on the leading edge of that bell-curve distribution.

Posted by: johngalt at February 7, 2014 6:25 PM
But jk thinks:

And, I s'pect when you said this that I worried about the transition. The Platinum mileage club Paltridge describes is not going down without a fight. And to "prove" they're wrong takes 100 years.

Curiously, I've come to be more accepting over the years. I think the sensitivity will be at the low end -- more likely under the low end -- of the expected range. Not so much a denier as a "negligibler."

I invite any rabid DAWG defenders to join me as a face saving landing-point. "I wasn't wrong mind you, it's just not as bad as I thought."

Posted by: jk at February 7, 2014 6:38 PM
But T. Greer thinks:

Most climate scientists are not really that bad. But only understand a part of the system really well, and they will not say anything on the record except about the small bit they know.

I have a friend who fights very hard against the global warming alarmist types. All he ever cites is the IPCC and other scientific literature in the field.

It is not the scientists at fault here, but the environmentalists. They are the ones who tried to term environmental science into a religion--and ignored most scientific results in the process!

Posted by: T. Greer at February 8, 2014 4:11 AM
But jk thinks:

I'm going to push back a bit, tg. If I accept the foundation of your premise, it seems many scientists are at least complicit in allowing the enviros to continue to misreport and misinterpret.

Somebody proclaiming a biblical time scale of creation will attract a mole of scientists to publicly refute it. VP Gore's movie overstated and fabricated science and the general warmies community was silent.

Perhaps if the Creationists bought more First Class Plane tickets...

Even at that, I applaud your friend but I think of scientists like Michael Mann. He advertises himself as a scientist. Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson use the mantle of science -- they may be teevee scientists, but they're not NGOs.

I expect real scientists to accept Popperian epistemology on some level and engage with their detractors even when they disagree. My understanding from the pop cosmology books I love is that the M-Theory guys hate the string-theorists, but they do not withhold data and call their opponents "12-th dimension deniers."

Real scientists and those close have behaved shamefully for decades. Even if Michael Mann turns out to be 100% correct in CO2 sensitivity and his Super Bowl predictions, there is no excuse for his abuses to science and its methods.

Posted by: jk at February 8, 2014 1:01 PM

February 6, 2014

Drill Baby Drill, Drill

I really need to visit Minnesotans for Global Warming more often. This is from 2011 but still as relevant as ever.

Posted by JohnGalt at 5:32 PM | Comments (0)

January 3, 2014

Another "dirty little secret" of renewable energy

I wonder if readers will be as surprised as I to learn that the energy required to produce a 1,000 watt solar panel is on the order of 20,000,000 watt hours? That is the gist of this 1997 Australian whitepaper - Can Solar Cells Ever Recapture the Energy Invested in their Manufacture?

It depends on the particular type of panel of course, and efficiencies may have improved but still, I wonder how many solar PV evangelists know that the energy produced in the first 2-10 years of their system's operation all goes to pay back the energy consumed to create the things in the first place? "Woo hoo, halfway through my solar PV warranty period I'm finally net energy positive! Feel the clean power baby!"

I heard this topic discussed on a local liberty-oriented radio show last night, where the claim was that the energy of manufacture exceeds the energy produced over a lifetime. While that may be true at extreme latitudes it's a credibility-destroying exaggeration.

Posted by JohnGalt at 5:17 PM | Comments (3)
But jk thinks:

And the batteries in that plug-in Prius already have 40,000 miles of equivalent impact on them.

Talking with a friendly on FB (yeah, there's one -- I met him at LOTR-Flatirons), I'm concerned about something else photovoltaic: From Dr. Gray's Global Warming speech, the solar energy hitting earth is ~4W/m2 -- is that not a maximum? 5 x 5 m to light a 100W bulb? Good thing they're illegal.

Me missing something?

Posted by: jk at January 3, 2014 5:43 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Yeah, 4 watts is way low. Click the Atlantis Farm Weather widget on the sidebar any time to find a graph of real-time solar radiation in watts per square meter. In winter the peak is about 500 and in summer about 1000. Even averaged over a 24-hour period it is about 80 watts in winter and 160 in summer.

Which means, now that I think about it, a 1kW peak power panel can't produce that much year-round, which means the years to break even is higher than advertised.

Posted by: johngalt at January 3, 2014 6:04 PM
But jk thinks:

Very cool, thanks. Me need to read Dr. Gray again.

Posted by: jk at January 3, 2014 6:13 PM

January 2, 2014

Headline of the Year

Yeah, I know it's Jan 2. But (WSJ Ed Page):


Posted by John Kranz at 2:56 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

What? No electric powered icebreakers?

Posted by: johngalt at January 2, 2014 6:08 PM

December 11, 2013


A better word would be subsidy.

To summarize the CBS Denver 4 report:

Electric company establishes surcharge to customers to subsidize boutique power.
Initial kickback set at about 50 percent of installation cost.
Chinese "predatory pricing" and old fashioned competition drive costs down.
Electric company reduces surcharge.
Non-competitive boutique power installers whine that they "can't afford to pay employees."

Rilly? You were able to pay them when you paid half the cost to start with. What gives?

Oh, it's harder to sell your product to customers. I see.

Every morning you greet me.

Posted by JohnGalt at 6:40 PM | Comments (0)

T-Shirt Meme of the Day




End the insanity - ban wind power!

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:45 PM | Comments (6)
But Keith Arnold thinks:

It's telling that my first reaction was "They're playing the 3-9-1 Vikings this week, and Petersen is doubtful. How much more saving do they need?"

I wonder whether eagle paté tastes like chicken.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at December 11, 2013 4:09 PM
But Keith Arnold thinks:


The eagle failed to make its saving throw versus Wind Farm.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at December 11, 2013 4:15 PM
But johngalt thinks:

I haven't read the O-admin's jackass rule yet but it is entirely possible that they've made it legal, under federal law, to kill eagles but not to possess their feathers. Although if they did have enough forsight to exempt employees, the only persons in North America legally authorized to possess eagle feathers would be Native Americans and wind farm workers.

Posted by: johngalt at December 11, 2013 6:05 PM
But Keith Arnold thinks:

I stand corrected on my initial comment - the Vikings are now 4-9-1. The Eagles failed to make their saving throw versus Minnesota.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at December 16, 2013 1:22 AM
But dagny thinks:

The Eagles made their saving throw, it just came in an odd form called the Green Bay Packers. Just as the Broncos saving throw came from some guys in orange and blue with Dolphins on their shirts. :-)

Posted by: dagny at December 16, 2013 12:19 PM
But jk thinks:

Yaaaaay Dolphins!!!

Posted by: jk at December 16, 2013 1:26 PM

October 8, 2013

How Science Works

Somehow, this seems inconsistent with Popperian Epistemology. But here is a description of the discussion on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Summary for Policymakers (SPM):

Concerning the evidence that the key findings of the report are based on, Saudi Arabia suggested adding "assumptions" or "scientific assumptions" to the list. The addition of "scientific assumptions" was supported by Brazil and opposed by Austria, Canada, Germany and Belgium. The latter underscored that assumptions are already implicitly included in the already-listed theory, models and expert judgement. The Group rejected the insertion.


On the headline statement, which states that warming of the climate system is unequivocal and, since 1950, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia, Saudi Arabia said the statement was "alarmist," urged qualifying the terms "unequivocal" and "unprecedented," requested using the year 1850 instead of 1950, and called for a reference to slowed warming over the past 15 years.

Germany, Australia, Chile, Spain, Fiji, New Zealand, the US, Saint Lucia, Tanzania, Mexico, Slovenia, the UK and others supported the statement as presented, with Germany pointing out that AR4 concluded almost the same. Canada pointed out that factors other than warming will be the emphasis in the future. The Russian Federation proposed "changing," rather than warming of the climate system. After some discussion, Saudi Arabia agreed to accept the statement as presented.

Sounds like the science is settled...

Posted by John Kranz at 5:41 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

I have no difficulty imagining a modern-day Immanuel Kant proclaiming, "It is impossible to be certain of anything, except that human activity is responsible for Global Climate Change."

Posted by: johngalt at October 9, 2013 2:34 PM

October 2, 2013

So that's how the Obama campaign raised so much cash "on the internet"

This could be an "Otequay of the Ayday" post:

ďWeíre all familiar with the J-curve in private equity,Ē said Joseph Dear chief investment officer at the California Public Employee Retirement System in March. ďWell, for CalPERS, clean-tech investing has got an L-curve for Ďlose.íĒ

ďOur experience is this has been a noble way to lose money,Ē Dear added.

From an article at -- The Venture Corporatists - "Saving the planet" has made lot of investors richer. Taxpayers? Not so much, which concludes:

As long as green technology remains not simply an economic venture but a moral one, taxpayers will continue to nobly lose money as politically connected ďsocial entrepreneursĒ reap a windfall.
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:55 PM | Comments (0)

October 1, 2013

Now, a UN Shutdown . . .

The IPCC report boldly states in its executive summary that the science is settled but inside its many pages the supporting evidence is unsettling. Go to your favorite denying site for more information.

But go to the WSJ Ed Page for a plausible response:

One lesson of the IPCC report is that now is the time for policy caution. Let's see if the nonwarming trend continues, in which case the climate models will need remodeling. But that's far less costly than trying to undo grand global redistribution schemes like carbon cap and trade.

The other lesson is that amid such uncertainty the best insurance against adverse climate risks is robust economic growth. The wealthier the world is in 50 or 100 years, the more resources and technology it will have to cope if the worst predictions come true. But that requires free-market, pro-growth policies that are the opposite of the statist fixes pushed by the climate alarmists.

They use the flimsy intellectual scaffolding of the IPCC report to justify killing the U.S. coal industry and the Keystone XL pipeline, banning natural gas drilling, imposing costly efficiency requirements for automobiles, light bulbs, washing machines and refrigerators, and using scarce resources to subsidize technologies that even after decades can't compete on their own in the marketplace.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:46 AM | Comments (0)

September 24, 2013

Scientific Heresy?

The once prestigious Scientific American Magazine has taken the "skeptic" label a step further and labeled Dr. Judith Curry, director of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, a "heretic." Then has the audacity to ask in the sub-head, "Why can't we have a civil conversation about climate?"

Her-e-tic: n. 3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle. Synonyms: 3. dissenter, skeptic, freethinker.

If science always conformed to established attitudes, doctrines and principles then the earth would still be flat and man would be flightless. At least as far as "science" is concerned.

So, how did Dr. Curry's apostasy begin?

But over the past year or so she has become better known for something that annoys, even infuriates, many of her scientific colleagues. Curry has been engaging actively with the climate change skeptic community, largely by participating on outsider blogs such as Climate Audit, the Air Vent and the Black≠board. Along the way, she has come to question how climatologists react to those who question the science, no matter how well established it is. Although many of the skeptics recycle critiques that have long since been disproved, others, she believes, bring up valid points -- and by lumping the good with the bad, climate researchers not only miss out on a chance to improve their science, they come across to the public as haughty.

You mean, she's been trying to have a civil conversation about climate?

Ultimately though, I think this one quote is the most important one in the entire article:

Still, once Curry ventured out onto the skeptic blogs, the questions she saw coming from the most technically savvy of the outsiders -- including statisticians, mechanical engineers and computer modelers from industry -- helped to solidify her own uneasiness. "Not to say that the IPCC science was wrong, but I no longer felt obligated in substituting the IPCC for my own personal judgment," she said in a recent interview posted on the Collide-a-Scape climate blog.

That any scientist would ever substitute anything for her own personal judgment is the reason why science got off the fact-finding and truth-seeking track in the first place.

UPDATE: This article was mentioned by Mark Steyn yesterday, but it was published in November, 2010. [No matches found for "curry" in ThreeSources archives from November 2010.]

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:27 PM | Comments (6)
But Keith Arnold thinks:

Heretic, is she? Eppur si muove, baby. Sometimes, the heretics are right.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at September 24, 2013 3:29 PM
But jk thinks:

Dr. Curry made ThreeSources (your home for heretics and heterodoxy since 2003...) on January 9, 2013.

Posted by: jk at September 24, 2013 4:26 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Copernicus. Galileo. Kepler. Newton. How many of them "felt obligated in substituting the ____ for my own personal judgment?"

Posted by: johngalt at September 24, 2013 4:52 PM
But Keith Arnold thinks:

When stone-cold scientists substitute their own personal judgment (based on their scientific inquiry)in the place of orthodoxy, you get wonderful discoveries and advances, and they get branded as heretics.

When jurists substitute their own personal judgment in place of the black-letter law, you get penumbras, and they get hailed as advanced and elite, or having grown in office.

I had to say it. I supposed I'll have to be burned at the stake for saying it.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at September 24, 2013 6:21 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Nah. I submit there is more in common between your two examples than you realize. The key is "based on their scientific inquiry" and "based on their explicit reading of the law." Now, the law was created by man and can be inconsistent. Conversely, reality was created by NED and is absolutely consistent.

And if'n you weren't a heretic we wouldn't let you hang around here.

Posted by: johngalt at September 24, 2013 7:23 PM
But Jk thinks:

Popular Science turns off comments to silence those wacky deniers. Once proud?

Posted by: Jk at September 24, 2013 11:00 PM

September 23, 2013

A Global-Temperature Predictive Model that Works

Get out the grant money! Blogger Coyote Blog has nailed it:

In 2007, for my first climate video, I created an admittedly simplistic model of global temperatures. I did not try to model any details within the climate system. Instead, I attempted to tease out a very few (it ended up being three) trends from the historic temperature data and simply projected them forward. Each of these trends has a logic grounded in physical processes, but the values I used were pure regression rather than any bottom up calculation from physics. Here they are:
· A long term trend of 0.4C warming per century. This can be thought of as a sort of base natural rate for the post-little ice age era.
· An additional linear trend beginning in 1945 of an additional 0.35C per century. This represents combined effects of CO2 (whose effects should largely appear after mid-century) and higher solar activity in the second half of the 20th century (Note that this is way, way below the mainstream estimates in the IPCC of the historic contribution of CO2, as it implies the maximum historic contribution is less than 0.2C)
· A cyclic trend that looks like a sine wave centered on zero (such that over time it adds nothing to the long term trend) with a period of about 63 years. Think of this as representing the net effect of cyclical climate processes such as the PDO and AMO.

It works better than the others...

UPDATE: Speaking of "works," EPA admits its regulations won't help:

The moon is full. Jupiter is aligned with Mars. Venus is in the seventh house, and the Environmental Protection Agency actually has made a truthful statement about the effects of a proposed regulation, specifically, its new proposed "carbon pollution" rule for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new powerplants.

To wit (pp. 16-17): "... the EPA projects that this proposed rule will result in negligible CO2 emission changes [or] quantified benefits... by 2022."

Yes, you read that correctly: EPA argues explicitly that its proposed carbon pollution rule will yield no actual benefits. EPA asserts also that there will be no costs from the rule, a premise deeply problematic; but this projected vacuum devoid of regulatory effects, benefits, or costs is the result of the EPA's broader argument that coal-fired powerplants are unlikely to be built with or without the carbon pollution rule because of long-term competitive pressures from gas-fired plants.

Posted by John Kranz at 1:44 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

Please define what you mean by "works."

-Predicts actual temperature patterns? Okay.

-Precipitates a widespread guilt-driven surrender of the American Dream and voluntary submission to soviet-style egalitarian socialism by way of penance? The IPCC version works way better for that.

Posted by: johngalt at September 23, 2013 2:43 PM

August 1, 2013

Liberty on Film!!!

The video from the previous Liberty on the Rocks -- Flatirons is posted:

It was superb and I highly recommend it.

Part 2 | Part 3 | Dr. Gray's website

Posted by John Kranz at 7:06 PM | Comments (0)

July 23, 2013

A DAWG-Denyin' Good Time was Had by All

Dr. William Gray's talk at LOTR-F last night was superb. For those who attended (ThreeSources acquitted itself quite well!) the slides are here. And Gray's academic/hurricane page here.

I heard so many of my favorite arguments elucidated well by the charming octogenarian that I became convinced I was of his intellectual caliber. I later recognized the name and realized that he was one of my early influences.

This was the second-best attended LOTR-F evah (Yaron Brook was first). And there were enough "30-second speeches" before that I demurred. But I was prepared to share this from Alex B. Berezow:

The Left repeatedly insists that climate change is the world's #1 problem, and this has distracted us from the world's actual #1 problem: Poverty. About 1.3 billion people don't have electricity, meaning they also don't have adequate access to food, healthcare or the Internet. Essentially, such communities are condemned to a life of indefinite poverty. Providing them with cheap electricity is a compassionate, progressive thing to do.

Posted by John Kranz at 9:51 AM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

Yes, attendance was so high that management should have moved us upstairs and put the regular patrons in the basement!

I'd like to highlight a few takeaways:

1- Global Climate Change research has little to do with science, and much to do with global politics.

2- Global temperature will rise if atmospheric CO2 doubles, but probably only by 2 to 3 tenths of a degree. (0.2 to 0.3 C)

3- Global temperature variation due to natural causes has historically, and will in future, dwarf the CO2 driven change.

4- The largest cause of global temperature change, by far, is deep water ocean currents. Or, as I coined last night: The source of Global Warming is "Davey Jones' Locker."

And finally,

5- Dr. William M. Gray's prescription for the "problem" of "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?" Do nothing. If it becomes a problem in future there will be plenty of time and technology to deal with it.

Posted by: johngalt at July 23, 2013 11:17 AM

July 16, 2013

$KO Where's that Global Warming?



Posted by John Kranz at 9:41 AM | Comments (0)

July 12, 2013

Global Warmity Goodness!

Mr. Ridley, call your office! Matt, line one...

Some Trees Use Less Water Amid Rising Carbon Dioxide, Paper Says

Or so says the New York Times. Probably some shadowy Koch Brothers outfit.

Posted by John Kranz at 3:21 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

"...though that has not yet been proved." Proof? All we need is "consensus."

Posted by: johngalt at July 12, 2013 10:26 PM

July 11, 2013

Parody is Obsolete

I'll steal Insty's entire post:

WORLD ENDS: WOMEN AND MINORITIES HARDEST HIT. Climate Change Will Affect Non-White Americans Disproportionately.

I should not have clicked. But I did. And you will too. This is the literary equivalent of Saturday Night Live's sketch where everyone had to smell the spoiled milk:
What if some people in the U.S. live in areas that are hotter than the neighbors just across town? The researchers, all from the University of California, Berkeley, decided they wanted to check if access to trees and other green cover, which keeps neighborhoods cool, is correlated with race. Having more trees and less asphalt in an area keeps reduces air conditioning bills and air pollution.

The researchers found that non-white Americans are more likely to live in census blocks that have little tree cover and more asphalt than white Americans. Blacks were the most likely to live in so-called "heat islands" in cities and suburbs, followed by Asians, then Hispanics, then whites.

This means that in the future, if global warming brings on more heat waves, non-whites could be more vulnerable than their white neighbors. To fix this, cities could plan tree-planting initiatives, the Berkeley researchers wrote in a paper they published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. Many major cities, including New York and Chicago, already have new-tree plans in place.

Mommy, make them stop excerpting, it hurts, Mommy...

Posted by John Kranz at 6:17 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

How do they know that the correlation does not go the other way? Instead of non-white Americans being "more vulnerable" to global warming, maybe they are causing it? Data doesn't lie.

Posted by: johngalt at July 11, 2013 6:34 PM

Some Rational Optimism for Thursday

Very much in the spirit of his "The Rational Optimist" [Review Corner]. Sadly very much not in the style of "saucily exhibiting Kelly Slater's package".

Posted by John Kranz at 4:47 PM | Comments (3)
But johngalt thinks:

How much would we have to pay Kelly to recite this speech for a promo video?

Posted by: johngalt at July 11, 2013 6:36 PM
But johngalt thinks:


Posted by: johngalt at July 11, 2013 6:44 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Lies! All lies! Ridley is obviously a shill for Big Prosperity.

Posted by: johngalt at July 11, 2013 6:54 PM

June 1, 2013

Right Problem, Wrong Solution

James Pethokoukis is correct. The topic of global warming is fraught with peril for the GOP. Being intransigent, fighting "science," and appearing indifferent turns off a lot of voters -- especially young voters. Especially, well, all the voters all the GOP schemes seek to attract.

And yet, Pethokoukis points out, Republican primary voters want to hear "it's a hoax." With significant tailwinds on size of government and Democratic miscues, the GOP -- on a minor issue -- is set up to be unable to nominate anybody who could win. In my best Mr. Mackey voice, I say "That's bad, mmkay?"

Pethokoukis offers some bold solutions. Even he admits they will be a tough sell. Trading a carbon tax for significant reductions in regulation and corporate tax reform has its charms, but it is a hard sell even to me. So, JimiP, we're going to tax the great engine of what Deepak Lal calls "Promethean Growth" and further establish government as the arbiter of what is good ('lectric cars, ethanol) and what's bad (stinky oil, raw milk, tea party groups...).

In addition, it is pretty easily demagogued; "Gas Tax" like "Amnesty!" has the power to reduce intelligent debate to shouting. ("Advantage TT")

Worse -- and readers know I am a HUGE fan of Pethokoukis -- I think he understates the hard sell to the left. They may have some fears of oceans' rising, but status quo policy is working very well for them. Schooners of money for research, EPA control of everything, a winning political issue.

Pethokoukis's other solution is geoengineering. I will admit that that is my favorite solution if DAWG pans out to be real. Shoot seawater into clouds or reflective sulphate particles into the upper atmosphere. My favorite, not mentioned, is iron particles on the surface of the ocean to enable plant growth. But all of these solutions have to win over a left wing that fights vaccinations and GMO crops and fracking on junk science -- they're going to buy in on atmos-tampering?

On the other side, you're convincing me that the UN should be in charge of the weather. Is that a really good idea?

I applaud his taking this on. I agree that a plan is needed, that leadership is good. Yet how do you ask the party of less government to mobilize legislation against n externality that is not quantitatively understood?

Posted by John Kranz at 9:37 AM | Comments (3)
But JC thinks:

"mobilize legislation against n externality that is not quantitatively understood?"

Should humanity deny the carbon count? (ppm as measured at altitude)

Do we deny all progress by claiming ignorance?

"We have no proof... why should we change our behavior because of a silly theory and ever-rising ?"

I cry conspiracy!!!

Posted by: JC at June 3, 2013 9:32 PM
But jk thinks:

And I cry shenanigans! The key word was the adverb "quantitatively," which you conveniently ignored to launch into your pantomime.

I do not deny CO2 has increased. I believe that the sensitivity to CO2 is low. You're shocked at 400 ppm. Four-hundredths of a percent of atmospheric gasses is a benign, non-poisonous compound vital to life and useful to plants.

There exists some function that describes exactly how much warming we’re likely to see for a given increase in CO2. This is poorly understood. The IPCC report provided a wide range and some recent peer-reviewed research suggests it may be even lower. If warming is minimal, there is even less cause to interfere with growth, freedom and innovation.

Posted by: jk at June 4, 2013 10:18 AM
But johngalt thinks:

C'mon JC, the Climate Change Fear Engine has apogeed and is in the down phase of its cycle. Time to jump on the next rising wave - GMOs!

Get with the program! There's votes to be won!

Posted by: johngalt at June 4, 2013 3:17 PM

May 29, 2013

Take this guy to the track next time

All right you knuckle-draggin', science-ignoring, global warming denialists! Here's your morning read. If you have a progressive friend on Facebook who watches Jon Stewart all the time, she'll be able to help you with the big words.

The Parliamentary Question that started this was put by Lord Donoughue on 8 November 2012. The Question is as follows.
To ask Her Majestyís Government Ö whether they consider a rise in global temperature of 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1880 to be significant. [HL3050]

Doug Keenan, guest-posting at the very interesting looking Bishop Hill blog, takes on that question from the standpoint of selecting the correct statistical model to evaluate the rise.

If that sounded interesting, click away. If not, you're not going to like the post any better than the description. Just turn FOX News back on and see if there are any more Cheetos® in the sofa cushions.

Hat-tip: Robert Tracinski [subscribe]

Posted by John Kranz at 1:42 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

No Cheetos in here, but plenty of Fruit Loops and Apple Jacks and ... waitaminute. Did you say Parliament is debating "statistical significance?" How do we get Congress to do that?

The long and interesting linked blog post ends thusly:

To conclude, the primary basis for global-warming alarmism is unfounded. The Met Office has been making false claims about the significance of climatic changes to Parliament‚ÄĒas well as to the government, the media, and others ‚ÄĒ claims which have seriously affected both policies and opinions. When questioned about those claims in Parliament, the Met Office did everything feasible to avoid telling the truth.

The UK government essentially admitted, very reluctantly, that "the primary basis for global-warming alarmism is unfounded."

[Dramatic pause.]

Posted by: johngalt at May 29, 2013 2:40 PM

May 21, 2013

Otequay of the Ayday

The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists [like economists] disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous [Consensus?] in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. -- Newsweek, April 28, 1975

Related: "Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in thirteen U.S. states." (Same article)

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:55 PM | Comments (0)

May 20, 2013

Quote of the Day

Gripping entertainment. Can I bear the excitement? As I sip my coffee and stare at the ice my thoughts turn to what the polar ice might do this year. Might it also be late breaking up? That would set the cat among the pigeons. -- Commenter Ian H.
Mister H is watching -- live -- what may be the latest ice break up in the Nenana Ice Classic. "The latest the ice has ever gone out was May 20th, 1964 at 11:41 AM Alaska Standard Time. As of this writing there is about 28 hours to go to break that record."
Posted by John Kranz at 11:36 AM | Comments (0)

March 29, 2013

Quote of the Day

The problem for the climateers is increasingly dire. As The Economist shows in its first chart (Figure 1 here), the recent temperature record is now falling distinctly to the very low end of its predicted range and may soon fall out of it, which means the models are wrong, or, at the very least, that there's something going on that supposedly "settled" science hasn't been able to settle. -- Steven Hayward
Posted by John Kranz at 3:53 PM | Comments (0)

March 8, 2013

CNN: Global Warming is Totally for Real!

A new study makes an interesting point: a very long term study concludes that the temperature swing from 1910 - 2010 is unprecedented. Perhaps it has been colder, perhaps warmer, but it has never shifted so much in only a century. Pretty interesting point.

Furthermore, the study authors feel that we should be in a cold period and that the last, very warm decade would be catastrophic if the same amount of DAWG were present at a warm part of the cycle.

Interesting. But I must -- its being CNN -- excerpt another part of the story. Deirdre McClosky, call your office! We have figured out why prosperity happened -- it was a predictable climate!

Humanity in the last 11,500 years

The scientists chose the period of time known as the "Holocene" for their research, because it is the most recent natural warm phase in Earth's history. It began at the end of the last Ice Age about 11,500 years ago, and we are still in it.

The Holocene has also been the epoch of human achievement, the beginning of civilization. Stable weather patterns helped people do more of everything they wanted to, partly because they no longer had to fight the cold of an ice age.

They began farming, which extended their own life spans and increased population on Earth. They built cities and roads, made art, developed languages and laws. They formed empires and nations.

Eventually, they invented machines, landing themselves in the industrialized age, driven by engines and turbines, which are powered by combustible fuel.

Thus began man-made greenhouse gases.

No mention of the Enlightenment. Stopped fighting an ice age; became prosperous and wealthy -- then ruined the climate. Oh irony, thy name is Man!

Posted by John Kranz at 4:59 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

Stable weather patterns or warmer weather patterns? Check your premise, new studiers.

Posted by: johngalt at March 8, 2013 7:39 PM

March 6, 2013

Quote of the Day

The House Science, Space and Technology Committee announced early Wednesday that it's postponing its environmental subcommittee's scheduled 10 a.m. hearing on the state of the science behind climate change. As a reason, it cited "weather."
Of course, that doesn't mean anything. Climate isn't weather -- unless it is very hot.

Hat-tip: Insty

Posted by John Kranz at 10:53 AM | Comments (0)

February 27, 2013

Pollution-Free Coal Power

Detractors like to say "Clean Coal doesn't exist" but Dr. Liang-Shih Fan is one of many scientists laboring, and succeeding, in accomplishing it.

Liang-Shih Fan, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering, and director of the Clean Coal Lab, has just completed a 203 hour test of a radical new way of obtaining energy from coal. Typical coal-fired power plants burn coal to boil water, and run the resultant steam through turbines to produce electricity. Fan's process, a new technology called "coal-direct chemical looping," does not burn the coal. Instead, it chemically converts coal to heat in a sealed reactor chamber. Tiny iron oxide beads help to deliver oxygen to the coal particles, which are then cycled through an airflow chamber for re-oxygenation, then run back through the reaction chamber. This is the "looping" in the technology's name. The process gives off no air pollution, and the captured carbon dioxide is ninety-nine percent pure, enough to make it a valuable commodity.

The test, which was run on a lab-sized reactor, produced a continuous twenty-five kilowatts of power.

25 KW! That could power a house! Or a car! Oh wait - carbon dioxide? Hasn't the EPA decided that carbon dioxide, necessary for plant growth, is a pollutant? Never mind. Back to windmills and bicycles.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:38 PM | Comments (2)
But Alexc thinks:

I was pleased to see that there is a NASCAR stock car sponsored by "Clean Coal"

This is good news.

Posted by: Alexc at February 28, 2013 2:56 PM
But johngalt thinks:

I thought so too brother, but when I saw it wrecked last weekend I couldn't help wondering what kind of smear ad the Church of Human Sacrifice might make from it.

Posted by: johngalt at March 1, 2013 11:59 AM

January 24, 2013

Two Important Pieces on Climate Change

Quite a week from two non-deniers.

Walter Russell Mead points out that The Economist magazine has given up on global climate treaties: "Once a believer in the global approach, it appears to have given up"

The good folks at The Economist suggest "[V]oters appear more willing to accept domestic environmental laws than international ones. If true, that is an indictment of years of green activism that has pushed for a global treaty first."

Just tactics, so far, although one appreciates the nod to reason -- especially remembering President Bush's being blamed for every weather incident for not signing Kyoto (after the Senate opposed it 0 - 95, but whatever...)

More important were a couple of, dare I say, scientific concessions:

The Economist also brings us big news on the "settled science" of climate change. A new study has found soot to be twice as bad for climate as was previously thought, making it the second most damaging greenhouse agent after CO2. This is actually good news for two reasons.

To oppose CO2 is to oppose modernity. The dedicated warmie settles for nothing less than "back to the caves." Keystone Pipeline? Fracking? Mai Non! We've a planet to protect! I think even some grouchy old ThreeSourcers could get behind reasonable action on soot. I might be wrong, perhaps there is a pro-soot faction. But reducing soot seems a natural by-product of efficiency. Cleaner fuels, complete combustion should move toward CO2 + H2O as exhaust. Plants' two best friends. As more change is attributable to soot, this reduces the impact of CO2.

If that doesn't melt your cold, cold heart mosey on over to the WSJ Ed Page. "Skeptical Environmentalist" Bjorn Lomborg has a guest editorial. True to his designs, Lomborg -- like Professor Mead and the editorial staff at The Economist -- believes completely in Deleterious Anthropogenic Warming of the Globe. But he wants it addressed scientifically and economically.

This makes his criticism of the hype credible:

Unfortunately, when the president described the urgent nature of the threat--the "devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms"--the scary examples suggested that he is contemplating poor policies that don't point to any real, let alone smart, solutions. Global warming is a problem that needs fixing, but exaggeration doesn't help, and it often distracts us from simple, cheaper and smarter solutions.

Lomborg knows the plural of anecdote isn't data. Wildfires have been reduced, droughts are holdin' steady and the damage from hurricanes is set to halve as a % of GDP by 2100.
This does not mean that climate change isn't an issue. It means that exaggerating the threat concentrates resources in the wrong areas. Consider hurricanes (though similar points hold for wildfire and drought). If the aim is to reduce storm damage, then first focus on resilience--better building codes and better enforcement of those codes. Ending subsidies for hurricane insurance to discourage building in vulnerable zones would also help, as would investing in better infrastructure (from stronger levees to higher-capacity sewers).

That's the news on the science front. Now, from Facebook:


Pretty much captures the important discussion points, does it not?

UPDATE: Insty provides this link to the Lomborg piece, might be free.

Posted by John Kranz at 6:34 PM | Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:

So, we're supposed to conclude that "experts" are full of crap? Isn't that mostly who is cited to "prove" the climate change threat: experts?

Beside that, this handy chart of four different natural disasters includes three that have killed millions of people (and remain capable of doing so again) and one, climate change, that has killed no one. Sort of reminds me of that old Sesame Street bit - "One of these things is not like the other, three of these things are kind of the same."

And still further, I might choose a far different collection of "experts" to compare to those discussing "the whole climate change thing." Jim Jones... Marshall Applewhite... Chicken Little.

Posted by: johngalt at January 25, 2013 1:44 AM
But jk thinks:

Lies, damned lies and statistics: my warmie friends throw out numbers in the 20,000-30,000 range for "people killed by global warming." I forget if that is annual or not -- not sure they know or care but there is a UN document they quote. To segue to the hated cartoon, it basically represents every death by nature.

Posted by: jk at January 25, 2013 9:03 AM

January 9, 2013

On consensus in science

A Facebook friend (not one of the Facebook friends) links to a nice piece on scientific consensus. He says all the things I try to say, but the author, Jonathan DuHammel does not quote Karl Popper or use the word "epistemology." Probably the better for both points!

[Dr. Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology] goes on the write: "With genuinely well-established scientific theories, 'consensus' is not discussed and the concept of consensus is arguably irrelevant... While a consensus may arise surrounding a specific scientific hypothesis or theory, the existence of a consensus is not itself the evidence." And she notes: "If the objective of scientific research is to obtain truth and avoid error, how might a consensus seeking process introduce bias into the science and increase the chances for error? 'Confirmation bias' is a well-known psychological principle that connotes the seeking or interpreting of evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs, expectations, or an existing hypothesis. Confirmation bias usually refers to unwitting selectivity in the acquisition and interpretation of evidence."

There are some famous failures of consensus in history. The pre-eminent one was the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe. That was the prevailing consensus 500 years ago. That consensus was shown to be in error, first by Nicolaus Copernicus and later by Galileo, Kepler, and Newton.

Posted by John Kranz at 5:31 PM | Comments (2)
But AndyN thinks:

"...I by and by found out that a consensus examines a new thing with its feelings rather oftener than with its mind. You know, yourself, that this is so. Do those people examine with feelings that are friendly to evidence? You know they don't. It is the other way about. They do the examining by the light of their prejudices - now isn't that true?

"With curious results, yes. So curious that you wonder the consensuses do not go out of the business. Do you know of a case where a consensus won a game? You can go back as far as you want to and you will find history furnishing you this (until now) unwritten maxim for your guidance and profit: Whatever new thing a consensus coppers (colloquial for "bets against"), bet your money on that very card and do not be afraid."

Mark Twain from Dr. Loeb's Incredible Discovery first published in Europe and Elsewhere in 1923, reprinted in On the Damned Human Race. Of course, every good leftist knows he's a racist, so they can safely ignore what he had to say. Anybody seriously interested in social commentary should own a copy of the book though.

Posted by: AndyN at January 10, 2013 9:42 AM
But johngalt thinks:

Cool quote and literary tip Andy.

"Whatever new thing a consensus [bets against] bet your money on that very card and do not be afraid."


Posted by: johngalt at January 10, 2013 3:04 PM

October 31, 2012

Obama's Solar Panel Cronyism: Move On, Nothing to See Here

"You better let him know that the WH wants to move Abound forward."
- Executive Director DOE Loan Programs, June 25, 2010

Composite video below from RevealingPolitics. Story based on DOE emails obtained by CompleteColorado.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:21 PM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

Nice -- and further supported:

The new emails contradict claims by Obama and others in his administration that all decisions on the $20 billion DOE clean energy loans were made by career executives in the department.

Most recently, Obama told a Denver television news interviewer on Oct. 26, 2012, that the loan decisions are "decisions, by the way, that are made by the Department of Energy, they have nothing to do with politics."

Posted by: jk at October 31, 2012 5:35 PM

September 4, 2012

Idiot Quote of the Day

"The reason the economics fail in the US is not a failure of Wind, its a failure of greedy corporations to allocate costs in a manner that is for the common good. Energy is like air - it comes from God and should not be for-profit. COOPs are the most cost efficient way to deliver electricity. Remove the corporate overhead with multi-million dollar salaries for CEO's and the economics of wind are obvious."

Posted 3 hours ago as a comment on a blog post at one of my engineering trade magazines. The post itself is noteworthy, for it represents the first I can remember where the realities of alternative energy sources are given as much weight as the pollyanna political correctness.

And then there is the cost of wind per MW hr with the subsidy included. Without the subsidy - fuggedaboutit. And it looks like the forgetting will be happening soon. The tax credits for "alternative" (read unreliable) energy have not been renewed. What was that again? Renewables have not been renewed? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? There is a simple explanation.

Wind power does not succeed by capturing wind. It succeeds by capturing government.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:25 PM | Comments (1)
But Keith Arnold thinks:

"... the economics of wind are obvious..."

I've got your "obvious" right here...

Posted by: Keith Arnold at September 4, 2012 3:43 PM

August 17, 2012

Cleaned by Capitalism

Now, a tune for the choir! I almost get sick of saying it, but private enterprise is cleaning the air and reducing greenhouse gasses.

Thanks to natural gas, market forces, technology, and private sector activity, C02 emissions drop to a 20-year low

In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.

Mark J Perry closes: "Another great example of how society is 'cleaned by capitalism.'"

Posted by John Kranz at 7:31 PM | Comments (0)

August 9, 2012

Otequay of the Ayday

NY Times - What Cornfields Show, Data Now Confirm: July Set Mark as U.S.ís Hottest Month

In the United States, the only hope for substantial relief from higher-than-average temperatures in the coming weeks and months would be a striking atmospheric change, like the development this autumn of the weather pattern known as El Niño or a tropical cyclone that moves into the central part of the country from the Gulf of Mexico, scientists said on Wednesday.

But, wasn't electing Barack Obama in 2008 supposed to accomplish this?

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:46 PM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

To deny the connection would be to thumb one's nose at science.

Posted by: jk at August 9, 2012 4:48 PM

July 30, 2012

Half of US "Global Warming" Due to Poor Thermometer Siting

...and "post measurement adjustments."

Question Authority, baby! Speak Truth to Power!

From the rational thinkers at Watts Up With That:

PRESS RELEASE -- U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments.
Chico, CA July 29th, 2012 -- 12 PM PDT -- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

A comparison and summary of trends is shown from the paper. Acceptably placed thermometers away from common urban influences read much cooler nationwide:

A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France's Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.

The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.


Since this is SCIENCE I'm sure Mikey Mann and the rest will immediately back it up with fulsome praise for the authors and a nomination for some prizes.

Posted by Ellis Wyatt at 3:05 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
But jk thinks:

I need guidance.

This was one of my "go-to" challenges for DAWG advocates and still seems credible. And yet, the BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) study was said to have compensated for that and still shown similar amounts of temperature increase.

I don't wish to make the leap from skeptic to denier but I've grown to not trust any of them.

It happens that BEST is back in the news today.

Posted by: jk at July 31, 2012 10:41 AM
But johngalt thinks:

"I'm personally very worried" and "I personally suspect that it will be bad" are not very persuasive unless you already believe what he supposedly now concludes in support of "the global warming cause."

The peer-reviewed science in this field has proven to be highly suspect, and this study doesn't even rise to that low bar.

But my ultimate answer is that measuring "global" temperature of both land and atmospheric masses is about as practical as measuring "the" level of all the world's oceans. There can never be enough data points to give an accurate and reliable reading. It's just too big and too complex to measure, much less to "simulate" on a supercomputer.

Posted by: johngalt at July 31, 2012 2:25 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Put differently: Those who believe the earth's overall temperature and the oceans' mean levels can be precisely measured are also capable of believing that government bureaucrats can effectively manage supply, demand and price for whatever they choose. The scientific name for such people is "Democrat."

Posted by: johngalt at July 31, 2012 2:39 PM
But jk thinks:

Well said. My earthier response was always: "Even though I can swear my band has played there a few times, the Earth does not have a rectum where one can take its temperature."

But a brief perusal of the BEST study seemed somewhat convincing.

Posted by: jk at July 31, 2012 3:45 PM
But johngalt thinks:

It may reasonably show that the average temperature of the sites measured increased but extending that to the entire planet is questionable.

But beyond that, how does BEST "prove" that the rise is "manmade?"

Posted by: johngalt at August 1, 2012 3:02 PM
But jk thinks:

No way it does. I started out accepting the G and W in DAWG but neither the A nor D. After Climategate, I started to question the W as well (G is cool, the planet is basically round).

The BEST study when it came out put me back toward accepting the W.

Posted by: jk at August 1, 2012 4:06 PM

July 5, 2012

"Colorado Burning" because "Climate Changed?"

Anyone who has read many stories on the Colorado forest fires has surely seen at least one account that links the events with "climate change." Stories like Huffpo's "Stunning NASA Map Shows Severe Heat Wave Fueling Wildfires" are an extreme example. But Colorado state climatologist Nolan Doesken has a much different explanation:

While itís true that this June was the hottest June on record, averaging 75 degrees, or 7.6 degrees above normal, he said extreme heat was just one of the ingredientsĖand maybe not even the most important oneĖinvolved in this yearís perfect wildfire storm.

Mr. Doesken noted that July is inevitably hotter than June, but there are fewer wildfires in July because itís also wetter. May and June are typically drier and windier than July and August, which are hotter but more humid.

He said the key to this yearís wildfire season was the lack of snow in March, which left trees more stressed than usual going into the dry spring. Was that caused by manmade climate change? His answer: a definite maybe.

"Itís tempting to say, ĎAh-ha, this is the face of climate change,í but it might not be. Or it might be one of several things," said Mr. Doesken. "The forests burn when the meteorological conditions are right, and when thatís the case, itís going to happen with or without anything we call climate change."

The story continues, exploring more likely factors:

Forest-health advocates say thereís one thing missing from the climate-change-causes-wildfires theory: The forests are so poorly managed that it doesnít take much for them to go up in flames. Twenty years of reductions in timber sales and environmental lawsuits have gutted logging on public lands, resulting in densely packed, tinder-dry trees that are practically designed for crown fires.

Bill Gherardi, president of the Colorado Forestry Association, said the state has historically seen 20 to 80 tree stems per acre in its national forests. Today, he said, the density has increased to 400-1,200 stems per acre.

The problems associated with the lack of forest management are well-documented. A 2011 report by the Forest Service found that the bark-beetle outbreak was partly the result of a drastic reduction in timber sales driven by appeals and litigation by environmental groups, as well as an inability to reach some areas due to inadequate roads.

In Region 2, which includes Colorado, the timber industry declined 63% from 1986 to 2005. ďConsequently, few industrial resources were or are available to help the Forest Service in applying management practices in response to the bark beetle outbreak,Ē said the report, which was requested by Democratic Sen. Mark Udall.

So one explanation is 7.6 degrees warmer temperatures for a month and the other explanation includes 15 to 20 times higher density of trees that are diseased and dead, at least partially due to that very overcrowding. Given that tens of thousands of wildfires occur each year in the United States, Colorado's fire disasters are unprecedented for their severity rather than frequency. And that severity is driven more by wind and fuel density than by a dubious, anti-scientific theory called climate change.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:51 PM | Comments (5)
But jk thinks:

I cannot believe you are letting gun owners off the hook so easily.

Posted by: jk at July 5, 2012 4:29 PM
But Ellis Wyatt thinks:

Glad you provided that link to the good ol' days when the Climatgate emails came out. I've been reading some archives but there are seven years of stuff here and I doubt I'll get to it all. I read some from around the 2008 election to get a flavor, and it was Good. Classy, If BHO wins a second term I don't think I'll be able to keep as cool as you guys.

Posted by: Ellis Wyatt at July 5, 2012 5:06 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Heh. If this president wins a second term I don't think I will either!

Posted by: johngalt at July 5, 2012 5:27 PM
But JC thinks:

"Sometime people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief. - Frantz Fanon

Posted by: JC at August 2, 2012 9:45 PM
But JC thinks:

"Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief. - Frantz Fanon

Posted by: JC at August 2, 2012 9:46 PM

June 30, 2012

Innovation 2, Malthusian Environmentalism 0

I know I just posted about this -- but the story is getting better. Walter Russell Mead:

In any case, the United States of America is living proof that there are more ways to address environmental concerns than the green movement as a whole is willing to admit.

And if the United States can achieve this while blowing off the panicky greens and their tiresome Malthusian agendas, so can China and India. That is a very good thing, because those countries have zero repeat zero interest in adopting any green measures that slow their growth.

The truth is that if CO2 emissions are going to come down, it's going to happen the American way rather than the Greenpeace way. Instead of flinging muck and howling curses at the most successful carbon cutting large economy in the world, maybe a few more greens here and there will start thinking about how to spread the magic around.

I did post the last one to Facebook -- about how Fracking was saving the world and all the cute fuzzy critters which inhabit it. Not a peep in reply. I'd like to think I won them over with reason, but I fear they've just completely given up on me. (NO PORKY! BREATHE FROM THE DIAPHRAGM!)

Hat-tip: Instapundit, who nails it with "The problem is, the way we did it provided insufficient opportuinites for graft."

Posted by John Kranz at 12:00 PM | Comments (3)
But johngalt thinks:

To the contrary, I presume Facebook silence to indicate complete agreement. Congratulations!

Posted by: johngalt at July 1, 2012 11:06 AM
But nanobrewer thinks:

No, I don't think "opportunities for graft - NOT" is it at all. I think the populist urge is "opportunities to be perceived as an elevated being by pursuing things that show how *I* am above greed." Which is of course, shorthand for wanting to vote for whatever really can't work.

Posted by: nanobrewer at July 2, 2012 1:30 AM
But jk thinks:

Your point is well taken on the individuials, nb. But where the UN is involved, I would be slower to rule out "graft."

Posted by: jk at July 2, 2012 10:35 AM

June 26, 2012

Weather is not climate!

'Bout ready to sign up with VP Gore. . . This is our fourth or fifth day of 100+ which is very rare. It hasn't rained since last Thanksgiving or so, and the entire state is on fire. But -- as I am always reminded when I comment on cool weather -- "weather is not climate." Except, of course when it works for the other guys -- then it is a "dangerous portent of climate change."

So let's all cool down. It seems the Antarctic shelf is not melting (as predicted) and the temperatures around it are cooler than predicted. Huh? #COMPUTERMODELFAIL ?

It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.

The team's results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted ...

Aaaah, Antarctic ice. . . I feel better. The quote is from the American Geophysical Union via The (UK) Register, via Lord Glenn of Knoxville.

UPDATE: 88° at 8:51 AM!

Posted by John Kranz at 10:41 AM | Comments (7)
But jk thinks:

Indeed. Come home, Al, we need you!!!!!

Posted by: jk at June 27, 2012 12:48 PM
But Robert thinks:

Friends--any idea if the historic Heinlein house at 1776 Mesa Ave in Colorado Springs is in danger of being burned down? The Heinlein community is asking. Thought one of you might have access to details that I don't.

Posted by: Robert at June 27, 2012 12:53 PM
But johngalt thinks:

The short answer is no. That address is on the mountains side of I-25 so it is at risk from forest fire but the fire now burning is all north of Manitou Springs, according to Wundermap. (Search for the address then click the "FIRE" option box. Turn off smoke. Zoom out.)

The Heinlein home is just a quarter mile west of the Broadmoor Hotel and Resort. If it's ever in danger that is the landmark that will be mentioned.

Posted by: johngalt at June 27, 2012 2:09 PM
But Robert thinks:

Thanks. I did track down a map from the Denver Post a little while ago that was reassuring on this point--if not for thousands of other people and their homes.

I only read the 1952 Scientific American article about the house for the first time a couple of months ago and am hoping it's still there when I visit. Colorado is my Dad's adopted home state and I am a big fan.

If you can take me by Galt's Gulch when I visit that would be a bonus!

Posted by: Robert at June 27, 2012 5:05 PM
But Robert thinks:

CORRECTION: The article was in Popular Mechanics. I don't know what I was thinking but I was way off. You can see it here:

Posted by: Robert at June 27, 2012 5:34 PM
But jk thinks:

No, I think it was Vougue® . . .

Very, very cool. Anybody who fails to click will forever regret it.

Posted by: jk at June 27, 2012 6:15 PM

June 21, 2012

Too Much Benefit of Doubt

Poor Bjorn Lombourg. He's gay, european, environmentalist, and a fulsome believer in Deleterious Anthropogenic Warming of the Globe. He respects NGOs and clearly sees a significant role for the United Nations in environmental and economic.

And yet, because he is capable of reason, all his friends are right-wingers -- like me. He is persona non-grata in the rest of the environmentalist community.

But his unfortunate habit of truth telling concerns cost vs. benefit -- where is the best place to put scarce resources? His guest editorial in the WSJ today concerns that, but he takes a sharper than usual look at why people still pursue climate change more than other projects that would be more cost effective.

Why then, do U.N. elites focus all their efforts on a feeble attempt to assist one person before successfully preventing 210 deaths? Because global warming feels more important--more hip. The majority of people in wealthy countries have lived their entire lives with clean air, clean water and electricity supplied through a grid. Air and water pollution is just old hat.

But surely "helping the world" isn't about making us feel good. It's about actually helping poor nations.

Nowhere are these misplaced priorities more apparent than in U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon's favorite program, "sustainable energy for all," which has emerged as a key goal of this year's summit. The program aims to ensure that all people have access to energy, but it places an inordinate emphasis on "green" technologies.

Almost as if the UN was more interested in control and power than people and the environment...

Posted by John Kranz at 11:59 AM | Comments (0)

June 16, 2012

Freeman Dyson on Climate Change

And how did I miss this? Freeman Dyson from 2007 on the need for heretics in Science.

My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.

Perfect weekend reading length. Hat-tip: Ed Kreyewski in Reason.

Posted by John Kranz at 5:11 PM | Comments (0)

June 10, 2012

Denver Post Scolds Sierra Club

Last week I noted that Sierra Club is preparing a "Beyond Natural Gas" advocacy effort as part of its "none of the above" energy strategy. Today the reactionary big-oil shills at the Denver Post editorial board joined my disapprobation.

The executive director of the influential environmental group recently wrote: "It's time to stop thinking of natural gas as a 'kinder, gentler' energy source."

To be blunt, no, it is not time.

We are dismayed that this group is repositioning itself as an anti-gas group, going as far as to proclaim that it will lobby to stop all new gas-fueled power plants.

It seems to us that as market conditions and technological advances have led to a boom in availibility of cheap natural gas, the backtracking is born of fear ó fear that this nation will come to rely on this "transitional fuel" as a long-term solution.

Disapprobation of environmental extremism deserves approbation. I don't say this every day but ... bravo, Denver Post, bravo.

Posted by JohnGalt at 11:30 AM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

Bravo, indeed!

Posted by: jk at June 10, 2012 1:38 PM

June 7, 2012

Beyond Magical Unicorn Farts

That is where the American environmental extremist group Sierra Club must intend to take American energy consumers.

On Monday I wrote about the use of natural gas as a political alternative to more prevalent and less costly coal as a source of electric power. That effort is supported by Sierra Club in their "Beyond Coal" campaign. But they aren't waiting for Phase I of Operation Nineteenth Century to be completed before launching Phase II: "Beyond Natural Gas." (Not "natural" enough?) Sierra's strategic coordination leaves much room for improvement.

Natural gas drillers exploit government loopholes, ignore decades-old environmental protections, and disregard the health of entire communities. "Fracking," a violent process that dislodges gas deposits from shale rock formations is known to contaminate drinking water, pollute the air, and cause earthquakes. If drillers canít extract natural gas without destroying landscapes and endangering the health of families, then we should not drill for natural gas. [Emphasis mine.]

After the requisite "what do you mean 'we' Kemosabe" the next thing I notice is how this message is designed to appeal to the feeler-perceiver contingent of the public but offers no evidence for the thinker-judgers among us. Fear, uncertainty and doubt anyone? Showing a glass of drinking water doctored with contaminants so expertly as to make Don Draper proud, the campaign against the hydraulic fracturing process seems to revolve mostly around the shorthand name for the method containing letters "F" and "K".

Blogger Jay F. Marks explains that Sierra Club took millions in donations from natural gas corporations for the purpose of bashing coal, but new Sierra Club director Michael Brune opened a new chapter in the war on reliable and affordable energy.

The Sierra Club once had a cozy relationship with the natural gas industry, taking more than $25 million in contributions from Chesapeake Energy Corp. and its subsidiaries to fund the fight against coal.

Brune ended that relationship when he took over as the environmental groupís director in March 2010. He said the club originally worked with Chesapeake because staff and volunteers concluded natural gas might be a viable alternative to coal in electricity generation, but some local chapters developed increasing concerns about gas production.

Let's fast forward, shall we?

Incoming Sierra Club executive director Barnaby Owleton said today that building and maintaining thousands of acres of monstrously large industrial machines to convert wind to electricity is a thorougly discredited process and a clear danger to migratory birds across the nation. "Extinction of multiple species is not just a possibility, but a certainty, if we don't act immediately to move Beyond Wind."
One or two election cycles later...

Woody Weederstein, in his first official statement as new Sierra Club director, slammed the solar electric energy industry for the consequences imposed upon the areas of our planet that are permanently and unavoidably shaded by solar power conversion panels. "In the name of all that is green" he said, "we as Americans have no moral choice but to move Beyond Solar."

And after they succeed in eliminating energy produced by magical unicorn farts the only remaining strategy to "save the planet" will be energy efficiency, which is just another name for rationing. I have a better idea: Hey Sierra Club - Frack off.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:46 PM | Comments (0)

June 4, 2012

President Obama's War on Heat and Light

Last week I wrote about the Denver Post's utter bewilderment that presidential candidate Mitt Romney would give a stump speech in rural Craig, Colorado (after all, there haven't been any layoffs there ... yet) and countered with the news coverage of the event by Routt County's Steamboat Today.

Today that much more objective publication runs an editorial by Rob Douglas that delves deeper into the contrast that Governor Romney is offering.

Agree or disagree with Obamaís goal, one fact is undeniable. When Obamaís intent became public, every man and woman working in coal-related jobs realized that Obama had placed a bulls-eye on their livelihood. Many of those men and women call the Yampa Valley home.

So when Romney sought the perfect venue to confront Obamaís claim of an ďall-of-the-aboveĒ energy policy, Northwest Colorado was a natural choice. Romney is calculating that he can increase his odds in November by siding with folks employed in fossil fuel industries in states like Colorado, Ohio and Pennsylvania ó all battleground states this year.

After all, Romney has a point when he argues that Obama has continued his war against coal.

This spring, having watched his cap-and-trade legislation die in the U.S. Senate when Democrats abandoned the bill in 2010, Obama bypassed Congress and used the Environmental Protection Agency to start implementing mercury emission, cross-state pollution and greenhouse gas regulations that will kill the coal industry.

But Douglas articulates a much more important message - one I have recognized but as yet not really written about: Coal is not the target. Pragmatic politicians cannot merely "sacrifice" the coal industry conifident in the fact that lost jobs will be replaced by growth in the natural gas industry. If coal is ever defeated the next environmental villain will be natural gas.

Coincidentally, on the same day Romney was speaking to the crowd gathered at Alice Pleasant Park in Craig, the Wall Street Journal reported that, according to the International Energy Agency, ďglobal exploitation of shale gas reserves could transform the worldís energy supply by lowering prices, improving security and curbing carbon dioxide emissions, but the industry might be stopped in its tracks if it doesnít work harder to resolve environmental concerns.Ē

Of course, everything after the ďbutĒ in that last sentence is where the battle lies. Because as can be witnessed even here in the Yampa Valley, there are some who will never accept fossil fuels as part of Americaís energy policy. And just as coal is under attack, these individuals and organizations are mounting battles to prohibit the use of fracking to extract oil and gas ó the same oil and gas that Americans have been led to believe could replace coal as an energy source.

And hydraulic fracturing is only the first battlefront in the coming War on Natural Gas. That little "feature" of natural gas called "curbing carbon dioxide emissions" will be its undoing for natural gas is not without CO2 emissions, and once its use has been predicated on reducing that "pollutant" it can hardly remain a viable energy source since it can also be shown to be a "dirty" fuel.

"First they came for the coal, and I said nothing."

Not me. I *heart* coal.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:42 PM | Comments (0)

May 31, 2012

Move along, nothing to see here

Mitt Romney made a whistlestop visit to Craig, Colorado on Tuesday after seeing this video, which was sent to him by Frank and Kerrie Moe, the hotel-owning couple who star in it. The event was covered by the Denver Post and Steamboat Today, and one is left wondering if the Post's Sara Burnett was at the same rally as was Steamboat Today's Scott Franz.

In 'Routt County Republicans meet Mitt Romney' Franz opens, "Nancy Buchner said the sour economy motivated her to drive to Craig on Tuesday morning to see Mitt Romney." But in 'Mitt Romney in Colorado calls for government as "ally of business" Ms. Burnett implies that everything's just peachy.

Unemployment in Moffat County was about 8.3 percent in April ó higher than the state average, which increased slightly to 7.8 percent last month. But local miners and the mayor of Craig said the local coal industry has been stable, with no layoffs or reduced hours at the local mines or the power plant.

According to Franz, however, local resident Buchner sees life differently in the remote coal-mining and power generating town:

"We really believe Romney has the tools and the knowledge to get the economy going," Buchner said, adding that she only recently became politically active because of the economy. "When I talked to different people (at the rally), they were worried about money. People cannot get jobs. This is not an election to sit out." She said she doesnít think President Barack Obama can turn the economy around.

Not to worry though, Burnett says:

The Obama campaign counters that the president's "all of the above" energy approach includes clean coal, as well as wind, solar, natural gas and other sources renewable energy sources. They also note the president made one of the most significant investments in development of clean coal technologies with $3.4 billion in stimulus funding.

Now, one has to wonder if Burnett and "the Obama campaign" agree with Al Gore who says "clean" coal "doesn't exist." Clearly this administration will spend billions of taxpayer dollars on something while at the very same time regulating it out of legal existence.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:04 PM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

Merciful freaking Zeus! FOX31 did this story -- together with the "Amercia" typo -- as a "The Wheels are coming off the Romney Campaign" story. It seems production is up and unemployment is less than surrounding areas. Ergo, yes, everything is fine and Governor Romney is insane to suggest there are any problems. They were astonished that the campaign would not retract this obvious "lie."

I weep.

Posted by: jk at May 31, 2012 4:25 PM

May 27, 2012

Eschew Sanguinity

On last week's post criticizing the City of Boulder's "Climate Change Preparedness Plan" brother JK glibly (sarcastically?) quipped that "if things get too warm here [in Weld County] I can drive right over the line [into Boulder County]" where presumably he'll be "saved" from the "deleterious" effects of global, or regional, umm county-wide climate change. Not so fast, dear friend. There's big trouble in little Nirvana.

Seems the CCPP is part of a larger Climate Action Plan (CAP) that is enabled by a voter-approved tax that expires next March. The tax collects $1.8 million annually for the City of Boulder's pet enviro projects. Apparently Boulder County thinks the city is on to something and they are contemplating a "sustainability tax" of their own. Boulder Daily Camera:

"I'm very concerned that if the county goes ahead, our CAP tax will stand a very good chance of losing," Mayor Matt Appelbaum said. "And that will just kill us. That will set us way back. It would be a huge loss for us if we lost the momentum. There are many programs that are just getting going."

Councilwoman Suzy Ageton said the programs will "crash" if the tax is not renewed.

"We're going to go off a cliff if this doesn't pass," she said.

One wonders if Boulder County's "sustainability tax" will be more sustainable than Boulder City's CAP tax.

Posted by JohnGalt at 12:09 PM | Comments (0)

April 30, 2012

The Science is Settled!

Can't argue with satellite data:

New research finds that wind farms actually warm up the surface of the land underneath them during the night, a phenomena that could put a damper on efforts to expand wind energy as a green energy solution.

Hat-tip: Instapundit.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:32 AM | Comments (0)

April 29, 2012

We're Laughing At You...

In his commencement speech at Hamilton College on Sunday, former Vice President Al Gore told the graduates that global warming is "the most serious challenge our civilization has ever faced." But as an undergraduate at Harvard University in the late 1960s, Gore--one of the most prominent spokesmen on climate change today--earned a "D" in Natural Sciences.

Funny, Is it real? Do I care?

Posted by John Kranz at 8:06 PM | Comments (0)

April 25, 2012

If I wanted America to Fail

Here we see that Francisco d'Anconia now has a contemporary counterpart with his own YouTube channel.

Posted by JohnGalt at 7:49 PM | Comments (0)

The 110,000 Million-Dollar Plan

A favorite TV show growing up was Lee Majors starring as the "Six-Million Dollar Man." After crashing the test flight of an experimental aircraft, Steve Austin was fitted with "bionics" that made him "better, stronger, faster." President Obama has been trying the same thing in America's energy market, with less success. Investors Ed Page says Obama Fought Oil and Lost; Now it's Back to Reality.

In other words, even a fast-forward to 23 years from now doesn't reveal an energy economy substantially different from today's. Obama has run up quite a price tag trying to deny this reality.

By one recent estimate from analysts sympathetic to the green-economy agenda, the government spent $110.3 billion in tax credits, loans and grants to promote the green economy from 2009 to 2011.

The Obama administration also has leaned against oil and toward the environmental lobby whenever the two were in conflict -- most notably in his decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline. What do we have as a result? High gasoline prices, a bigger federal deficit and not-ready-for-prime-time electric cars.

Energy is bound to be one of the key issues in this year's presidential election, and for once the question won't be about managing scarcity. It will be about how to take advantage of the abundant resources under our feet. Barack Obama fought oil and lost, and the next president can learn from his mistake.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:05 PM | Comments (1)
But Keith Arnold thinks:

"So I'm supposed to be more upset by what Romney does with his own money than with what Obama is doing with mine."

That comment was one of two shared with me this morning in the aftermath of the GOP primary results from last night. It's a comment that probably ought to resonate with all of us here...

Posted by: Keith Arnold at April 25, 2012 5:03 PM

April 24, 2012


Six years ago, James Lovelock, "the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his 'Gaia' theory of the Earth as a single organism" had some somewhat dark predictions:

He previously painted some of the direst visions of the effects of climate change. In 2006, in an article in the U.K.'s Independent newspaper, he wrote that "before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable."

In my best Mr. Mackey voice, I'd say "That's bad, mmkay?"

But a big man can admit when he is wrong, and Lovelock has a new book coming out called "Nevermind." (Actually, that is my suggestion, it is not clear from the article if a title has been chosen.)

The new book, due to be published next year, will be the third in a trilogy, following his earlier works, "Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth Is Fighting Back -- and How We Can Still Save Humanity," and "The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning: Enjoy It While You Can."

Turns out, it was climate's old tricks. Who would have thought that a scientist of Lovelock's stature would fall for those?
"The problem is we donít know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books -- mine included -- because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said.

"The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said.

Come to think of it, if "Bull's-eye Jim" is not worried now, I am starting to be concerned...

UPDATE: I meant to do this as a segue. Bjorn Lomborg has a WSJ Editorial the same day on the importance of using economic data to steer environmental policy.

But in tackling humanity's biggest challenges--climate change, malaria, natural disasters, education--we need more economic science, not less. Cost-benefit analysis, in particular, is a far more effective and moral approach than basing decisions on the media's roving gaze or the loudness of competing interest groups.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:15 AM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

Mea freaking culpa!

Posted by: johngalt at April 24, 2012 11:51 AM

March 13, 2012

It's the price of gas, stupid

Keep it up Mister President. IBD's Andrew Malcolm:

Showing his keen grasp of free market forces, Obama has ordered Justice officials to investigate oil speculation. Of course, there's oil speculation. It's called the futures market. And watching Obama's policies instead of his words, those experts see higher prices coming ahead, as do most Americans in the poll.

When taking office, Energy Secy. Stephen Chu expressed a desire to drive U.S. gas prices to the European levels of $8-$9 a gallon, much like taxation on cigarettes to discourage their use. This administration has achieved more than half that European goal already.

And voters are taking note:

A new Washington Post-ABC News Poll this week finds about two-out-of-three Americans now disapprove of the Chicago Democrat's job on gas prices, whatever that's been.

Maybe if he started reminding them he "killed bin Laden..."

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:49 PM | Comments (2)
But jk thinks:

The official Democratic talking point on this is "No Silver Bullet." The President said it in his speech and I heard two DNC representatives echo it.

Perhaps there's no single thing that would easily and immediately bring fuel prices down, but I can't help but feel if the administration stopped shooting them at every person or company that tries to produce energy, it would be a start.

Posted by: jk at March 13, 2012 4:05 PM
But jk thinks:

And never underestimate the timeless electoral appeal of "The Republicans are coming for your ladyparts!"

Posted by: jk at March 13, 2012 4:25 PM

March 8, 2012

Otequay of the Ayday

"And since 1979, an entire climate industry has grown up that has spent millions of human-hours applying that constantly increasing computer horsepower to studying the climate.

And after the millions of hours of human effort, after the millions and millions of dollars gone into research, after all of those million-fold increases in computer speed and size, and after the phenomenal increase in model sophistication and detail ... the guesstimated range of climate sensitivity hasn't narrowed in any significant fashion. It's still right around 3 ± 1.5°C per double of CO2, just like it was in 1979." --Willis Eschenbach

In the linked article Eschenbach, a self-described amateur scientist and generalist, gives an overview of climate science since its beginnings circa 1979. Click continue reading for the discussion of computing power that preceeds this quote, and click on the first link to find in his conclusion the real reason for lack of progress. Hint: Check your premises.

So there you have it, folks. The climate sensitivity is 3įC per doubling of CO2, with an error of about Ī 1.5įC. Net feedback is positive, although we donít understand the clouds. The models are not yet able to simulate regional climates. No surprises in any of that. Itís just what youíd expect a NAS panel to say.

Now, before going forwards, since the NAS report is based on computer models, let me take a slight diversion to list a few facts about computers, which are a long-time fascination of mine. As long as I can remember, I wanted a computer of my own. When I was a little kid I dreamed about having one. I speak a half dozen computer languages reasonably well, and there are more that Iíve forgotten. I wrote my first computer program in 1963.

Watching the changes in computer power has been astounding. In 1979, the fastest computer in the world was the Cray-1 supercomputer. In 1979, a Cray-1 supercomputer, a machine far beyond anything that most scientists might have dreamed of having, had 8 Mb of memory, 10 Gb of hard disk space, and ran at 100 MFLOPS (million floating point operations per second). The computer Iím writing this on has a thousand times the memory, fifty times the disk space, and two hundred times the speed of the Cray-1.

And thatís just my desktop computer. The new NASA climate supercomputer ďGaeaĒ shown in Figure 1 runs two and a half million times as fast as a Cray-1. This means that a one-day run on ďGaeaĒ would take a Cray-1 about seven thousand years to complete Ö

Now, why is the speed of a Cray-1 computer relevant to the NAS report I quoted from above?

It is relevant because as some of you may have realized, the NAS report I quoted from above is called the ďCharney Reportď. As far as I know, it was the first official National Academy of Science statement on the CO2 question. And when I said it was a ďrecent reportĒ, I was thinking about it in historical terms. It was published in 1979.

Hereís the bizarre part, the elephant in the climate science room. The Charney Report could have been written yesterday. AGW supporters are still making exactly the same claims, as if no time had passed at all. For example, AGW supporters are still saying the same thing about the clouds now as they were back in 1979óthey admit they donít understand them, that itís the biggest problem in the models, but all the same but theyíre sure the net feedback is positive. Iím not sure clear that works, but itís been that way since 1979.

Thatís the oddity to meówhen you read the Charney Report, it is obvious that almost nothing of significance has changed in the field since 1979. There have been no scientific breakthroughs, no new deep understandings. People are still making the same claims about climate sensitivity, with almost no change in the huge error limits. The range still varies by a factor of three, from about 1.5 to about 4.5įC per doubling of CO2.

Meanwhile, the computer horsepower has increased beyond anyoneís wildest expectations. The size of the climate models has done the same. The climate models of 1979 were thousands of lines of code. The modern models are more like millions of lines of code. Back then it was atmosphere only models with a few layers and large gridcells. Now we have fully coupled ocean-atmosphere-cryosphere-biosphere-lithosphere models, with much smaller gridcells and dozens of both oceanic and atmospheric layers.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:48 PM | Comments (1)
But Boulder Refugee thinks:

Totally awesome analysis!

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at March 9, 2012 12:53 AM

February 22, 2012


That's the name given by Chicago's Heartland Institute to the attempted smear through forgery by global warming activist Peter Gleick. Heartland's official response, in part:

"An additional document Gleick represented as coming from The Heartland Institute, a forged memo purporting to set out our strategies on global warming, has been extensively cited by newspapers and in news releases and articles posted on Web sites and blogs around the world. It has caused major and permanent damage to the reputations of The Heartland Institute and many of the scientists, policy experts, and organizations we work with.

"A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage.

"In his statement, Gleick claims he committed this crime because he believed The Heartland Institute was preventing a "rational debate" from taking place over global warming. This is unbelievable. Heartland has repeatedly asked for real debate on this important topic. Gleick himself was specifically invited to attend a Heartland event to debate global warming just days before he stole the documents. He turned down the invitation.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:45 PM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

Thanks for breaking ground on this. This is either a huge story or a huge story as to why it is not.

Megan McArdle was the first I saw to expose the faked docs, and she is still on fire. Here, Insty links to her and several other good posts/articles.

Posted by: jk at February 22, 2012 3:05 PM

February 17, 2012

Not Taxed Enough, Yet

dagny shares a financial "article of the day" via email. "The interesting thing about this is the comments" she writes. "The majority of commenters seem to think that reducing business taxes (i.e. letting business keep the money they made) is a, 'handout,' or, 'corporate welfare.' Betcha they don't think that about refundable tax credits like the EIC."

And why wouldn't commenters such as Chicago's own "gsdfhdgjhfdhjjjjjkgkjgjks" believe that accelerated depreciation and an R&D tax credit are handouts to corporations. President Obama and groups like Clean Energy Works are turning the entire English language upside down:

A memo circulating from Clean Energy Works, an alliance of about 60 groups, outlines a strategy of framing tax benefits the industry receives as corporate welfare. The memo calls the messaging plan a "line of attack" to counteract the description of climate legislation as a national energy tax.


"What they don't want anyone to know is that the American people already have a national energy tax -- The Big Oil Welfare Tax -- in the form of billions of dollars in subsidies to the wildly profitable big oil companies," the memo adds.

So first, "subsidies" to specific corporations equate to a "tax" on individuals. Well, I can see the logic here if the effects of economic growth spurred by a larger (and cheaper) energy supply and continued government spending on unrelated programs are ignored. But this misses the real point that taxing something less than it might be taxed can not in any sense be considered a subsidy. The government is taking wealth from wealth-producing companies. In English this is known as "taxation."

But even if one believes, as I do, that "Big Oil" should be taxed just as much as any other industry it is erroneous to examine a few specific tax categories where rates may differ and proclaim preferential treatment.

According to the Energy Information Administration, the industry's effective federal income tax rate is more than two-thirds higher than the average for all manufacturing industries.

Furthermore, those throwing stones at the oil industry over corporate welfare would do well to first look in the mirror, for the vast majority of them are vocal proponents of so-called "renewable" energy.

Another EIA study shows renewable energy industries enjoy double the incentives of those for oil and natural gas."

But punitive taxation is nothing new in America or anywhere else where wealth is produced and standards of living have been raised. And despite taking one-quarter or more of the freely created wealth of for-profit corporations and individuals, they still manage to keep working and producing and, getting the shaft. Our commenter from Chicago put it succinctly in the comments to the original article. In reply to a previous sarcastic comment which read:

"Nice. kick businesses in the teeth--the ones who hire the most-- and increase gov spending and deficits. Now THAT'S the way to make jobs!"

gsdfhdgjhfdhjjjjjkgkjgjks wrote:

Still works so far
Posted by JohnGalt at 2:28 PM | Comments (2)
But Keith Arnold thinks:

Well, as long as our government is kicking job-producing business in the teeth:

The text from the bill now in Congress (or is that, "incongruous"?) includes the following text. Where have I read something like this again?

"(4) REASONABLE PROFIT.‚ÄĒThe term ‚Äėreasonable profit‚Äô means the amount determined by the Reasonable Profits Board to be a reasonable profit on the sale."

And people think Rand wrote fiction...

Posted by: Keith Arnold at February 17, 2012 4:34 PM
But jk thinks:

Keep in mind, you'd be grouchy too if your parents had named you "gsdfhdgjhfdhjjjjjkgkjgjks"

Posted by: jk at February 17, 2012 5:32 PM

February 3, 2012

Quote of the Day

A reader emails Jay Nordlinger:

A while back we had some friends to dinner and got to talking about global warming. My friend -- a pediatrician -- is a down-the-line green believer convinced that Al Gore has it right and the rest of us are in denial. I -- with graduate degrees in physics and fluid mechanics / heat transfer -- am still somewhat skeptical, to say the least. His comment: "Well, I probably just have a different perspective on this because I have a technical background."

Posted by John Kranz at 4:34 PM | Comments (0)

January 29, 2012

SKEPTICS: our (Chilly) Day has Come!

Yawn. Another bit of news contravening DAWG. But the source is noteworthy. Take it away, überskeptic Don Surber:

Climategate Central: The skeptics were right

Forget global warming -- it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years.

The supposed 'consensus' on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years. The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century. Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

East Anglia Climatic Research where have I heard that name...

Posted by John Kranz at 5:11 PM | Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:

TIME Magazine: Gets it right half of the time.

Posted by: johngalt at January 30, 2012 2:51 PM
But jk thinks:

Yup -- just hang on to them for 40 years.

Posted by: jk at January 30, 2012 6:17 PM

January 27, 2012

Can't We All Get Along?

Two weeks from the Colorado Caucuses (just got my location: Coal Ridge Middle School in Firestone!) it is unlikely that ThreeSourcers will agree on a candidate.

Some have grown fond of LBJ's Press Secretary and GHWB's Economic Architect.

Don't get us started on immigration, drug legalization, or prostitution...

But I think everybody will like "Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic about Global Warming." It seems, mirabile dictu, that the science may actually not be settled after all:

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before--for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Measured and professional -- yet pointed at the same time. You're all going to love it. I'm certain!

Posted by John Kranz at 12:18 PM | Comments (5)
But Boulder Refugee thinks:

See ya at Coal Ridge. Lemme know if you need a ride.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 27, 2012 1:09 PM
But jk thinks:

Sounds interesting. I'm just worried we wouldn't have anything to talk about and the truck would be full of awkward silence...

Posted by: jk at January 27, 2012 2:22 PM
But johngalt thinks:

R O F L M A O !

Posted by: johngalt at January 27, 2012 2:43 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:

I second JG's sentiment!

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 27, 2012 2:55 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Y'all sure you've got the correct precinct numbers? 70 some-odd precinct boundaries (of 100 some-odd) were redrawn because of redistricting.

Verify your precinct here:

Determine your Weld GOP "District" here. You'll have to read through every precinct number for each district until you find yours.
Caucus locations are listed for each District.

And if you want to see the geographical outline of your precinct, it is here:

Posted by: johngalt at January 28, 2012 7:30 PM

January 25, 2012

Jobs vs. Environment

Thousands of loggers lost their jobs in the American Northwest because of dubious claims about wiping out the last of the spotted owls. This is just one example of environmental extremists' non-linear cost benefit analysis doing irreparable harm to the livelihoods of American workers.

The latest glaring example of this is TransCanada Corporation's Keystone XL Pipeline project. Despite the safety record showing pipelines to be the "safest, most efficient and economical way" to move the natural resource called crude oil, environmental activists have chosen spill hazards as the primary reason to oppose private construction of the new pipeline. But America is already criss-crossed by 55,000 miles of oil pipelines, many of which are small, old and in disrepair. And the spill rate [pg. 9] for those lines is 0.00109 incidents (spill of 50 bbl or more) per mile per year. That calculates to 60 spills every year. The estimated spill rate for the modern new Keystone XL [pg. 10] is 0.186 spills per year, anywhere over its entire 1371 mile length. (.000136 incidents per mile per year)

So the question every American voter should ask himself is, would I quit my job and ask 19,999 of my neighbors to quit theirs in order to avoid increasing the pipeline spill incident rate by 0.3 percent? (And have you even noticed any of the sixty-odd spills that already happen each year?)

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:57 PM | Comments (1)
But J thinks:

"Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief. - Frantz Fanon

Three Sources should consider re-branding to "Three Sources of Cognitive Dissonance" ;-) Rationalize, ignore and deny anything that does not fit within your core beliefs. Spotted owls, fracking, deforestation, pollution, environmental degradation and job loss included. Cheers! ;-)

Posted by: J at August 8, 2012 5:22 PM

January 24, 2012

Keystone XL Pipeline Economic Impact is "Settled"

As luck would have it, President Obama actually saved US and Canadian energy companies billions of wasted dollars by using the power of the regulatory state to stop construction of their "disastrous" tar sands pipeline. How do I know this? Al Gore says so.

"The analysis from the final EIS, noted above, indicates that denying the permit at this time is unlikely to have a substantial impact on U.S. employment, economic activity, trade, energy security, or foreign policy over the longer term." Source: Climate Progress

This is an important win not only for the thousands of activists who risked arrestóand for the hundreds who went to jail--but for all of us who want to try and role [sic] back the effects of the climate crisis, not magnify them.

And who could doubt the objective fiscal evaluations of Climate Progress?

Posted by JohnGalt at 11:59 PM | Comments (0)

January 15, 2012

DAWG Update

Thought all that arctic ice was gone, didn't you?

The people of Nome, Alaska, know well what it takes to survive the long, cold winter in an isolated town. But a confluence of bad weather and other circumstances has left them lacking the fuel needed to heat homes and power vehicles. Now, America's lone Arctic icebreaker is carving a path to Nome that will bring relief to the city--but it also highlights the critical state of U.S. ice-breaking capabilities.

Hat-tip Instapundit

Posted by John Kranz at 1:10 PM | Comments (3)
But johngalt thinks:

Never fear, DAWG "lives" on: Hail Could Vanish from Colorado's Front Range, Scientists Say

Future storms along the Front Range may become more intense and produce more hail inside clouds, the team found. However, because those relatively small hailstones fall through a warmer atmosphere, they melt quickly, falling as rain at the surface or evaporating back into the atmosphere.

Riiiight. Assumption upon assumption upon assumption leads to "findings." Science, I hardly knew ye.

Posted by: johngalt at January 15, 2012 6:28 PM
But jk thinks:

No hail? What will insurance adjusters do?

The humanity...

Posted by: jk at January 16, 2012 8:54 AM
But johngalt thinks:

Insurance adjusters? Think of the roofing contractors. They'll go the way of a Bain Capital investment!

Posted by: johngalt at January 16, 2012 12:24 PM

November 28, 2011

Smoking Gun Climategate 2.0 Quote of the Day

In a fair and honest world, my blog brother would be correct and the world would begin a serious reassessment of "Climate Science." I do not expect a multi-billion dollar international industry to fold up shop and go home. Yet I do wish there were a more honest news dissemination apparatus. True, none of the numerous emails in Climategate 1.0 or Climategate 2.0 explicitly say


Gosh! This is all a big hoax. Sure hope nobody ever finds out.


Therefore, everybody seems pretty convinced there is nothing to see there. One would have to use and understand the word epistemology.

If one of our dear ThreeSourcers would like to share something, they could do worse than this Open Letter to Dr. Phil Jones

So when my FOI request came along, you were caught. You were legally required to produce data you couldn't locate. Rather than tell the truth and say "I canít find it", you chose to lie. Hey, it was only a small lie, and it was for the Noble Cause of saving the world from Thermageddon. So you had David tell me the data was available on the web. You knew that was a lie. David, apparently, didn't realize it was a lie, at least at first. You hoped your Noble Lie would satisfy me, that I would get discouraged, and you could move on.

The entire letter is very good. Your lefty friends will not appreciate the site that hosts it nor its tone. But if the science is to be settled, the other guys will have to play like scientists.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:42 PM | Comments (4)
But johngalt thinks:

Devastating. The tone? Polite, objective, reserved, and still a totally and completely devastating expose of "climate 'science' realpolitik."

In the realm of reality ours is a fair and honest world. "One may not cheat reality," Ayn Rand said. Celebrities may be cheated. Newsmen may be cheated. Even scientists can be cheated, for a time. Eventually, however, the peer review process will attract enough attention from enough serious challengers that the soundstage for their make-believe science shall come tumbling down upon the directors' heads.

Perhaps the NYTimes will report Dr. Jones' retirement.

Posted by: johngalt at November 28, 2011 3:11 PM
But jk thinks:
Foolish me ... d'ya think I might have been more than a bit naive back then about climate "science" realpolitik?
If that is "reserved," you have perhaps been reading ThreeSources too long :)

But I agree on the devastating part.

Posted by: jk at November 28, 2011 3:51 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Too long? ThreeSources? Is that even possible?

Posted by: johngalt at November 28, 2011 5:03 PM
But Lisa M thinks:

Slightly less elegant but just as devastating, from Climategate 1.0:

Posted by: Lisa M at November 28, 2011 7:28 PM

November 27, 2011

Otequay of the Ayday

Happily, the left's pernicious, economy-destroying and false global warming ideology is collapsing under a growing body of evidence that the CO2 scare is a fraud.

Who says we have nothing to be thankful for? -Investors Ed Page

Posted by JohnGalt at 12:12 PM | Comments (5)
But jk thinks:

Now if we can just get everybody to read IBD.

Posted by: jk at November 27, 2011 4:54 PM
But johngalt thinks:

It may not be on the weekday morning news shows or in cartoons for the kiddies, but the "dead DAWG" message is getting out to the public somehow.

Just 51 percent of Americans -- or one percentage point more than in 1998 -- said they worry a great deal or fair amount about climate change, Gallup's annual environment poll says.
Posted by: johngalt at November 27, 2011 8:34 PM
But jk thinks:

Woohoo! Up to 49% are we? Break out the champagne!

I should save my swarmy sarcasm for Facebook lefties, but this is not a dead DAWG, it is more a wounded bear (polar? that would be cute -- little fuzzy white thing mauling everything in sight...)

Posted by: jk at November 28, 2011 12:04 PM
But jk thinks:

...and drinkin' a Coke®...

Posted by: jk at November 28, 2011 1:05 PM
But Lisa M thinks:

Clearly the link I shared above would have been more appropriate here. Still makes me laugh, two years later.

Posted by: Lisa M at November 28, 2011 7:31 PM

November 22, 2011


I am afraid that Mike [Mann] is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead. -- Chris Horner
Some call it ClimateGate2. A new batch of emails at
Posted by John Kranz at 3:29 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

Noteworthy is that the quote is not of ["denier"] Chris Horner, but of a Mr. "Cook" who was corresponding with Mike Mann and other colleagues in the leaked emails. Even a pro-DAWG colleague thought Mann was "not letting the science move ahead!"

Posted by: johngalt at November 23, 2011 2:35 PM

October 27, 2011

Solar Panels Don't Work

That's not my headline. It was written by solar industry CEO Ray Burgess.

If you listen to the mostly-Chinese manufacturers, solar panels work great. They can be expected to degrade about 0.5% a year. So that is how we build the economic models to finance, insure and subsidize the larger solar systems.

In the real world, we are just starting to find out how bogus many of those predictions are. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory says that panels can degrade as much as 4.5% a year. Or more. Put that in your pro forma and see what your banker and insurance agent -- or Congressman -- say about that.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:17 PM | Comments (1)
But nanobrewer thinks:

The author sells PV monitoring equipment and doesn't cite an actual NREL study; he cites an AOL page that points back to his own article.

I think the jury is still out on this one....

Posted by: nanobrewer at November 2, 2011 12:29 AM

October 25, 2011

Quote of the Day

"If there was a completely unlimited resource then we may have been able to surmount the technical problems," [U.K.] Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne told the BBC. -- WSJ Ed Page
It seems global warming is really, really dead this time...but nobody has told my Boulder friends.
Posted by John Kranz at 1:54 PM | Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:

True 'nuff. Boulder [government's] latest bout of wishful thinking: Government takeover the electric utility will lead to "more renewables in the mix and energy innovation."

Posted by: johngalt at October 25, 2011 3:37 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Oh yes, and this exactly fifty-three weeks after I proclaimed the jig was up.

Posted by: johngalt at October 25, 2011 3:44 PM

October 10, 2011

eppur si muove

The WSJ Ed Page goes grasping for a present day parallel to this tale

Mr. [Dan] Shechtman, who last week won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, is credited with the discovery in 1982 of quasicrystals, patterned but nonrepeating atomic structures that resemble the mosaics found in medieval Islamic art. For observing under an electron microscope what the scientific community held to be a physical impossibility, Mr. Shechtman was accused of "bringing disgrace" on his lab. Linus Pauling, the chemistry (and peace) Nobelist, called the discovery "nonsense" and denounced Mr. Shechtman as a "quasi-scientist." It took two years before a scientific journal would deign to publish his findings.

Today, Mr. Shechtman's observations have been fully validated and quasicrystals are beginning to have commercial applications. But his story is a reminder that a consensus of scientists is no substitute for, and often a bar to, great science. That's especially so when the consensus hardens into a dogmatic and self-satisfied enterprise


Posted by John Kranz at 11:41 AM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

Those in the engineering field are familiar with the term Not Invented Here, describing the contempt heaped upon ideas that come from some department other than that of the favored bureaucrat. This story is the research science equivalent: Not Discovered Here.

Posted by: johngalt at October 10, 2011 3:10 PM

October 6, 2011

Tele Spotting!

Robert Bryce offers Five Facts about Climate Change to match his WSJ Editorial. Alert viewers will note a handsome sunburst telecaster in the bookshelf behind him.

Do I get a free sandwich?

Posted by John Kranz at 3:21 PM | Comments (0)

September 30, 2011

Quote of the Day

So, in recent days, I've been arguing over whether, as the political Left claims, the political Right is anti-science. Needless to say, commentators of the Left disagree with me. Responses ranged from name-calling and indignation (which are fairly common), to the Left's new answer to charges of hypocrisy, which is to declare all criticism to be "false equivalencies." Apparently, false equivalencies are like Hebrew writing, traveling only from Right to Left. -- Kenneth P. Green
Posted by John Kranz at 2:57 PM | Comments (0)

September 19, 2011


It seems that 1973 physics Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever has fallen from the fold. The WSJ Ed Page reports that he "resigned last week from the American Physical Society in protest over the group's insistence that evidence of man-made global warming is 'incontrovertible.'"

In an email to the society, Mr. Giaever--who works at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute--wrote that "The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me . . . that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."

Mr. Giaever was an American Physical Society fellow, an honor bestowed on "only half of one percent" of the members, according to a spokesman. He follows in the footsteps of University of California at Santa Barbara Emeritus Professor of Physics Harold Lewis, a former APS fellow who resigned in 2010, calling global warming "the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist."

I am in the middle of another pop science book, the fun but überchallenging "The Shape of Inner Space -- String Theory and the Geometry of the Universe's Hidden Dimensions" by Shing-Tung Yau and Steve Nadis. And once again I am amazed that more real scientists do not object to the lack of rigor and political hijacking allowed in "climate science." The suppression of disagreement alone would be unthinkable in any other discipline.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:18 AM | Comments (0)

August 22, 2011

Hank Reardon, Call Your Office

Ken Salazar's Interior Department moves to prevent Exxon from developing a billion-barrel oil field it discovered in deep water Gulf of Mexico in 2007. Because of feared oil spills? No. Because it might impair the mating habits of the Gorite-dwelling shoestring eel? No.

Employing an extreme technicality, these regulators claimed that Exxon's request in 2008 for a short suspension of activity to upgrade and make safer its drilling operation amounted to an abandonment of three of its five permits, simply because Exxon hadn't signed a contract with another partner, Chevron, by the time the suspension was completed.

In the past, such glitches were no problem ó after all, it's obvious Exxon, which spent $300 million on exploratory wells, hasn't abandoned the operation.

But in the Obama era, which demonizes oil production in American waters by American companies, the bureaucrats came up with this permit technicality to effectively expropriate the entire operation.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:46 PM | Comments (3)
But Terri thinks:

I would say "unbelievable!!" but sadly nothing is anymore when it comes to this bullpucky.

Posted by: Terri at August 22, 2011 3:47 PM
But jk thinks:

This was a day in the WSJ Ed Page's Week in the life of the Obama Recovery

Consider the headlines only from last week, a slow week by Washington standards, with Congress out of session and President Obama campaigning for three days before going on vacation. Even in the dog days of August, your government was hard at work undermining economic confidence.

Holler if you would like it mailed over the pay wall, it is devastating.

Posted by: jk at August 22, 2011 3:54 PM
But Terri thinks:

Nope, I got it, and had read it first thinking you missed a ht to the WSJ, but then compared the quotes. Same song. Same, sad, sad, song.

Posted by: Terri at August 22, 2011 7:21 PM

GOP Answer to Climate Change

Climate Change is fraught with peril for the GOP. The best news about this country's complete economic meltdown is that many of the small potatoes issues have been tabled.

But Climate Change will be back. My Man, Jon Huntsman, thinks it's real and I confess I cannot get very excited when a Republican talks it up. OTOH, as texting economists say, I realize that any answer I would like will enrage the press and turn off huge swaths of moderates.

Kenneth P. Green at The American suggests a non-dogmatic answer and provides it free of charge to any of the candidates. They could do much worse, and as Speaker Thomas B Reed would quip, they probably will:

Since Jefferson's time, we've known that people can change the climate locally, regionally, and maybe even globally. Heck, any farmer knows we change the local climate! But activists have so muddied the issue by jiggering the data, suppressing dissent, predicting armageddon, and blaming every pooped-out polar bear on climate change it's hard to know what's real and what's hype.

They want to centrally plan the economy, but won't be honest about what they don't know. When pushed, leading climate scientists admitted they "lost" a bunch of their original data -- that's right, the dog ate it! Now they tell us aliens might wipe us out because of our greenhouse gas emissions!


Well, I don't believe that. What I do believe is that centrally planning our economy would be a disaster that would harm people and the planet. If the climate changes, we'll deal with that, but it will be by moving forward, not back to the caves

Megan McArdle gives a more balanced than you'll see most places look at the dangers of rigid belief.
What these Republicans are doing to people like Chris Christie is no better than what Harvard did to Larry Summers when he suggested that it was possible that women had a different IQ distribution than men. Facts are not good or bad; they are correct or incorrect. And a policy based on hysterical refusal to consider all possible facts is neither good, nor correct.

If someone is wrong about the facts, you should explain to them, calmly and concisely, why they are wrong. If it's really that obvious, it shouldn't be hard to convince them.

When people start trying to expel heretics because of disagreements over facts, it suggests that they suspect--even know--that the facts are not on their side. Which is, frankly, what I tend to think is happening here. If open argument is going to force your ideology to confront uncomfortable facts, you create a closed circle that the facts can't penetrate. If the circle is big enough, the geocentric universe gets a few hundred more years before the defensive perimeter cracks.

Fraught with peril. Even with the momentum shifting towards the DAWG deniers, I cannot imagine that one will be elected in 2012.


Mr. Huntsman, the former Utah governor and ambassador to Beijing, began his candidacy stressing his resume and his attractive family. With that getting him nowhere in a year when issues trump biography, he's now attacking fellow Republicans for, among other things, not embracing the science of global warming. "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy," Mr. Huntsman said on Twitter, a criticism of recent remarks by Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Mr. Huntsman followed that up on Sunday on ABC, telling Jake Tapper that the GOP has a "serious problem" when it becomes "anti-science." -- Paul Gigot

The bandwagon might suddenly feel 250 lbs. lighter...

Posted by John Kranz at 1:49 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

Thou art nothing if not fair and objective, dear brother. A germane update if there ever was one.

To the historical footnote we know as Jon Huntsman I reply, "Global Warming is anti-science, not the GOP. If you knew anything about science you would know this, and would also know better than to believe that everything said by a scientist is supported by science."

Posted by: johngalt at August 23, 2011 2:58 PM

July 28, 2011

In Other News, Global Warming is B******t!

Predicted readings of the computer models do not seem to match the experimental data:

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

As a dear Facebook friend will say "we can't be wasting our time with predictions -- we should be out fixing the planet!"

Hat-tip: Instapundit Sharp Insty readers have already noticed that the idiot who started the "global warming is killing all the polar bears" meme is under investigation.

Posted by John Kranz at 1:15 PM | Comments (2)
But Boulder Refugee thinks:

Well it made Fox News.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at July 29, 2011 2:07 PM
But jk thinks:

And Taranto's BOTW.

Posted by: jk at July 30, 2011 8:55 AM

July 6, 2011

"Go Green" for World Government

Colorado's GOP candidate for governor last year was ridiculed for suggesting that the UN had designs on World Government. Now a new UN report admits it.

The press release for the report [calling for a "technological overhaul" "on the scale of the first industrial revolution" to reach a "goal of full decarbonization of the global energy system by 2050"] discusses the need "to achieve a decent living standard for people in developing countries, especially the 1.4 billion still living in extreme poverty, and the additional 2 billion people expected worldwide by 2050." That sounds more like global redistribution of wealth than worrying about the earthís thermostat.

The entire article is a series of jaw-dropping objectives from Turtle Bay. It's worth a click.

If the Obama Administration is liberty's Imperial Cruiser, the United Nations is its Death Star.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:43 PM | Comments (0)

Dude, Where's my Warming?

As a guy with a medical reason to hate hot weather, I should be a little less flippant. The headline in the NYTimes will read: "Globe warms, MS patients hardest hit."

But that warming -- the very 'W' in DAWG -- remains elusive. While real scientists would be forced to rethink their theory, model, or measurements, "climate scientists" are allowed to look backwards and engage in a bit of ass-covering that is not available to other disciplines.

Or, as Kenneth P. Green puts it "Just another example of the endlessly shape-shifting, non-falsifiable world of politicized climate science."

Comes now the National Academy of Sciences, which yesterday published a new paper that sets out to explain "why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008." Apparently the NAS didnít get the memo from the Center for American Progress that we're not supposed to acknowledge that global warming has not happened over the last decade.

But not to worry. The NAS has it covered. As the rest of the abstract explains:

Yet to question them is to expose yourself as ign'nt...

Posted by John Kranz at 2:52 PM | Comments (0)

June 20, 2011

Intolerant, Monolithic, Science Deniers!

Some ThreeSourcers, myself included, may have to stare long and hard into the mirror after reading this Kenneth P. Green piece in the American.

Playing into my original DAWG strategy, Green, who claims he knows 99% or the deniers, calls them rainbow-climatists. Do you question D, A, W, or G?

Some disputed scientific claims about the exact level of climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases. Others disputed this or that climate feedback assumption. Others accepted that climate change was real, but probably not too bad. Some were simply skeptics in the old-fashioned sense of rejecting soothsayers and doom prophets, computerized or not. Still others might have bought most of the green-climatist orthodoxy, and held that climate change was real, partly human-caused, and likely harmful, but they differed regarding policy prescriptions.

Against these diverse skeptics was always a coordinated, monolithic front of doom. Bjorn Lomborg questioned the amplitude of D and was excommunicated without inquest or trial.

But Green sees that growing on the right as elections near.

Over at, and, apparently in the Rushbo zone, there is a new tone of intolerance when it comes to diversity of climate opinion: Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Chris Christie (hail the redeemer of fat guys from New Jersey!) have all been slammed recently for being taken in by the great climate con, and are basically being written off as viable candidates on the right. The Right has refined their tolerance equation to match that of the Left: "you're either with us or against us."

A little skepticism of skepticism might be correct -- and far more palatable to a moderate electorate.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:56 PM | Comments (3)
But johngalt thinks:

Here I am, hat in hand, asking for permission to declare that keeping slaves is "intolerable." So this makes me morally equivalent to those who claim it is compulsory?

OK, perhaps he's not claiming a moral equivalence... only an electoral equivalence. Politics sucks.

Posted by: johngalt at June 21, 2011 12:13 AM
But jk thinks:

It does on occasion, but I read Green's piece differently.

Green, despite his unfortunate eponymy, is a denier par excellence and I think the warning is philosophical. While gaping holes have been blown in the theory, it is too far to claim that it has been disproven in all forms. There is a chance that CO2 is harming the planet, even if not in the means, intensity, or time scale that its proponents predict.

Forgetting politics, I think it is a philosophical mistake to dismiss anyone because they believe at some level. Remembering politics again, I'd sure want to hear exactly what they thought we should do. But it should not be a dealbreaker, philosophically or politically -- I think Green is right on that.

Posted by: jk at June 21, 2011 10:26 AM
But johngalt thinks:

Trying to jump straight to the point: I'll never dismiss anyone's scientific theory any further than I can disprove it, i.e. "That doesn't make sense to me, I'd like to run some tests" or "This experimental outcome proves that your theory is full of male bovine excrement." What I, and I'd think you, object to vehemently is a top-down centrally controlled "Apollo mission to save humanity" which, wouldn't you know, requires scads of taxes and prohibitions to bring about. No. If there really were a "consensus" on this or that end-of-the-world scenario there would be no shortage of voluntary cooperation. When people are truly convinced that the end is near unless they pay 5 bucks for gas they'll do it without complaint.

Posted by: johngalt at June 21, 2011 2:32 PM

June 18, 2011

The Epistemological Case Against DAWG

These very pages have called the death knell of anthropogenic warming several times. "That's it," says we, "how can they continue after such-and-such?" But Freddy Krueger's got nothing on environmental science. It never goes away.

Were Milton Friedman around, he'd point out that they have seized the commanding heights. Academia, government, media and entertainment are captive to climate science. But climate science (resist the scare quotes...fight it) has no conclusive proof. To the contrary, most of the empirical evidence contravenes their predictions.

Yet, as leaked somewhat in the Climategate emails, the entire peer-review process is captive to a single side of the discussion. The only thing they can claim is consensus -- the bulk of peer reviewed science agrees with their position. Patrick Michaels takes to the pages of his Forbes blog to show just how unscientific the peer review process has become. "Publishing in the scientific literature is supposed to be tough." But not for climate science:

In order to limit any bias caused by personal or philosophical animosity, the editor should remove your name from the paper and send it to other experts who have no apparent conflict of interest in reviewing your work. You and the reviewers should not know who each other are. This is called a "double blind" peer review.

Well, this is "the way it is supposed to be." But in the intellectually inbred, filthy-rich world of climate science, where billions of dollars of government research money support trillions of dollars of government policy, peer review has become anything but that.

There is simply no "double blindness." For reasons that remain mysterious, all the major climate journals leave the authors' names on the manuscripts sent out for review.

For instance, you can just add 0.3 mm a year to the measured sea levels. OMG We're all going to drown!

Posted by John Kranz at 11:35 AM | Comments (3)
But johngalt thinks:

This began as the sort of erudition one least expects to find at a place called Then you cited Faux News and restored our cred.

So we're supposed to believe that global sea levels can be measured with such precision that 0.3 mm (the thickness of a fingernail) makes any difference?

What's lost in the 2nd story is the impending mortal crisis that is - Global Land-Mass Rebound.

Posted by: johngalt at June 18, 2011 5:06 PM
But jk thinks:

Heh. I have several domain names set to expire and I was thinking I would let go. If anybody likes it, I could easily be talked into renewing (it really does have some sizzle to it), but I shop at GoDaddy like Imelda Marcos at a Jimmy Choo sale and I am "thinning the heard" this year.

Posted by: jk at June 19, 2011 11:03 AM
But johngalt thinks:

I've started giving it out instead of threesources on the logic that it is more memorable.

(The funny thing is it took me a long time to realize it was actual rather than just a joke.)

Posted by: johngalt at June 19, 2011 12:16 PM

June 13, 2011

Mo DAWG Denyin'

Brother jg posted this awesome James Taylor piece both on ThreeSources and on Facebook. The Facebook post spawned a lengthy back and forth between me and a two-letter-sobriqued fellow several of us know. JG had the wisdom to avoid porcine singing instruction but I did not. "No. breathe from the diaphragm, Porky!"

Ed Morrissey tees it up with a segue to a superb piece in the Financial Post:

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, '80s and '90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

At this point, official "climate science" stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory -- that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

This was the heart of my futile argument. I'm reading Quantum Man, a story of the superbly interesting Richard Feynman by Lawrence M. Krauss. This is the third pop-science cosmology book I've cracked since the first Facebook thread, and it is comical to compare real science with climate science. In Quantum Man, the frequency of a tertiary line in the hydrogen spectrum is off by one part in ten million, and the theory is scrapped until it can be fixed.

In climate science, they are not quite so circumspect. They predict ten years without snow; when they get the two most snow-filled winters in the UK, they say "see, that proves it!"

From the bridge, Porky. Enunciate!

Posted by John Kranz at 11:30 AM | Comments (0)

June 3, 2011

Germany *HEART* Coal!

As a wild-eyed capitalist I've bragged before about how I love coal as an energy source. Now, we can add PhD physicist and Prime Minster of Germany, Angela Merkel to my club. NY Times: Germany, in Reversal, Will Close Nuclear Plants by 2022

"If the government goes ahead with what it said it would do, then Germany will be a kind of laboratory for efforts worldwide to end nuclear power in an advanced economy," said Mark Hibbs, a senior associate in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "No other country in the world is taking those steps."

I would call it a laboratory for something else - economic self-destruction.

The powerful Federal Association for German Industry, known as B.D.I., sent a letter on Monday morning to the chancellery, warning her about the consequences for German business.

"How will the international competitiveness of German industry be guaranteed?" Hans-Peter Keitel, B.D.I.ís president, wrote. "Industry last year accounted for two-thirds of Germanyís economic upswing."

What could possibly go wrong?
Hat Tip: Wikipedia's "in the news" section. (I sure didn't read it first in the Times.)

UPDATE: The reader may wonder at my connecting this Times story to coal, since it never mentions that fuel which provides half of Germany's electricity. It was, however, mentioned in a reference cited in the Wiki entry. There's also a picture of the very down-to-earth Environment Minister who dismisses more cautious and practical energy strategies. Minister Tritten:

"Ten years ago people told us that there would never be enough capacity to have a relevant share produced by wind - now the same people tell me we have too much wind, and have to export electricity because we have such a huge share of wind energy," he stated.

"So I can't take these arguments seriously."

He stressed he was "convinced" Germany would reach its target.

And he dismissed Dr Pfaffenberger's concerns about cost out of hand.

"He is wrong - simple," he said.

"To hear such arguments from people who haven't learned anything in the last half century - I am very calm on that."

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:45 PM | Comments (0)

May 26, 2011

Climate Rapture

To piggyback on the well-known "end of the world" story in the news last week I wanted to write something that showed the formulaic identity between doomsday preachers in Christianity and in science, and how both groups of fortune tellers want to empty the wallets of the gullible. Better yet, I decided to wait and watch for someone more eloquent to take up the assignment. Heartland Institute's James Taylor obliges.

Much like Camping is now claiming his May 21 Christian rapture prediction was essentially accurate, but that he was merely a few months off regarding the timetable (news alert: beware October 21, 2011!), the alarmists are now claiming their failed North Pole predictions were essentially accurate, but merely a few years off regarding the timetable. They now claim the Arctic Ocean will be essentially ice free by the year 2020 or 2030. Don't bet on it.

Taylor closes with an important, sad difference that even I had failed to consciously notice.

The list of failed predictions regarding global warming raptures is no less extensive than the list of failed predictions regarding Christian church raptures. There is one important difference, however. The Harold Campings of the world reside outside the Christian mainstream. Among global warming alarmists, the serially wrong rapturists define the mainstream.

How sweet is this for a Facebook headline: "James Taylor says that global warming alarmists have egg on their faces!"

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:31 PM | Comments (2)
But Keith Arnold thinks:

"Global Warming Prognosticators: 'I've Seen Fire, and I've Seen Rain, and I've Seen Melting Icecaps'"

Posted by: Keith Arnold at May 26, 2011 3:08 PM
But jk thinks:

Somebody did a great and similar riff: how [the author] wished that the failed predictions of the Stimulus were given as much media attention. I'll link if memory returns.

James Taylor looks somehow a lot younger and un-hipper than I recall. I'm going to suggest a stern "read the whole thing" that jg was too polite to include.

Posted by: jk at May 26, 2011 3:08 PM

May 15, 2011

Again? Still? Really?

Yesterday: Climate Change Activists Rally In Denver

The goal is to have the atmosphere declared for the first time as a "public trust" deserving special protection. That's a concept previously used to clean up polluted rivers and coastlines, although legal experts aren't sure if it can be successfully applied to climate change.

Congressman Jared Polis attended. Actresses Daryl Hannah and Sheryl Lee were also there.

"I think it's really inspiring that kids are leading the fight against the climate crisis, but I also think it's very heartbreaking," Hannah said.

Well if somebody as famous as Daryl Hannah... Oh, wait.

Former "alarmist" scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science

Blogger Bruce McQuain writes on HotAir about climate scientist David Evans who said, "I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic."

McQuain: "And with that he begins a demolition of the theories, premises and methods by which the AGW scare has been foisted on the public." It is a well written compilation of devastating excerpts. Further editing would be deleterious.

Posted by JohnGalt at 9:02 PM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

In addition to Ms. Hannah and my esteemed Congressional Representative, the video shows tens -- dozens maybe -- of students and climate activists. For our non-Colorado readers, I must point out that it was more than 20 degrees below normal temps yesterday.

Weather isn't climate, but the Gore Effect is the one empirically repeatable manifestation of the crisis.

Posted by: jk at May 16, 2011 11:20 AM

May 4, 2011

Wind Power Blows

Scotland's John Muir Trust (yes, that John Muir) has supported a study which concludes that wind turbines "cannot be relied upon" to produce significant levels of power generation.

Statements made by the wind industry and government agencies commonly assert that wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year, it said.

But the research found wind generation was below 20% of capacity more than half the time and below 10% of capacity over one third of the time.

But industry [damn, it sure feels good to call these environmentalist loons "industry"] spokesmanperson Jenny Hogan, director of policy for Scottish Renewables, was quick to defend the shortcomings of wind power saying, "No form of electricity worked at 100% capacity, 100% of the time."

"It could be argued the trust is acting irresponsibly given their expertise lies in protecting our wild lands and yet they seem to be going to great lengths to undermine renewable energy which is widely recognised as one of the biggest solutions to tackling climate change - the single biggest threat to our natural heritage.

"We have yet to hear the trust bring forward a viable alternative to lower emissions and meet our growing demand for safe, secure energy."

Climate WHAT? Oh yeah, that.

Hat Tip: A side link from JK's UPDATE.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:54 PM | Comments (4)
But jk thinks:

You're just one of those troglodytes that has yet to accept that The days of permanently available electricity may be coming to an end, the head of the power network said yesterday.

Families would have to get used to only using power when it was available, rather than constantly, said Steve Holliday, chief executive of National Grid. Mr Holliday was challenged over how the country would "keep the lights on" when it relied more on wind turbines as supplies of gas dwindled. Electricity provided by wind farms will increase six-fold by 2020 but critics complain they only generate on windy days.
Mr Holliday told Radio 4's Today programme that people would have to "change their behaviour". "The grid is going to be a very different system in 2020, 2030," he said. "We keep thinking that we want it to be there and provide power when we need it. It is going to be much smarter than that.

Posted by: jk at May 4, 2011 3:23 PM
But jk thinks:

Britons in this "smarter" world will no doubt have to learn to eat when there is food, drink when there is water and be warm when the sun is out.

Posted by: jk at May 4, 2011 3:28 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Stop. Yer killin' me! I'm not supposed to laugh this hard.

Posted by: johngalt at May 4, 2011 5:14 PM
But johngalt thinks:

On a more serious tangent, Britons will also soon learn to vote for politicians who promise power "all the time" over "smart" power that goes away when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.

Posted by: johngalt at May 4, 2011 8:17 PM

April 23, 2011

Romantic Comedy

It's been written a few times already. But I want to buy the film rights to "DealBreaker!" A tender tale of a DAWG-denyin' race car driver and his earth muffin girlfriend:

[...]one day, I logged on and saw that he had weighed in on a virtual debate and assumed a staunch position.

"Global warming isn't scientifically proven," he wrote.

WHAT??? Does he think the world is flat, too? I thought in horror. I'm from California. I've been recycling and saving dolphins since I was in the womb. Suddenly, memories came rushing back to me like a horrible movie montage: The arguments we had about hybrid cars--he contended that it didn't make a damn difference, since car companies still pollute in other ways. I thought he was just defensive about his decidedly not-green race car. And the way he would constantly rib on Al Gore, even after "An Inconvenient Truth" won the Academy Award... He was always so skeptical about the merits of organic food, too. And, hey, did he even have a recycling bin?!

Ergo, the ex will remain an ex, but in my story...

Hat-Tip: Instapundit, of course.

"Even after 'An Incovenient Truth' won the Academy Award."

Posted by John Kranz at 9:39 AM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

Reminds me of the 'House' episode when, on clinic duty, House tells the vegan hippie chick her boyfriend has been "cheating on her" with *gasp* BEEF!

Posted by: johngalt at April 23, 2011 10:05 AM

April 20, 2011

Hybrid and Electric Cars Suck

My dad recently emailed us a column from an engineering trade rag that bore the same title as this post.

So I am not going green with a hybrid/electric. No offense to Prius owners who are doing their part. It is just not for me. I am sticking with a regular gasoline car that gets good mileage but also has good performance. My other car, a 2010 VW GTI is one of those. It is a blast to drive. The 0 to 60 time is sub-6 seconds and it gets 31/32 mpg on the highway. Cost only $25K too. A real winner.

My dear Hawaiian auntie asked, "Does anyone know how much it costs to "fill one of these cars up with electricity"? I've never seen a quote,only how far you can drive & how long it takes to charge them. I realize it depends on how much your electrictricy costs are,but I've never even seen any estimates. Also how many windmills is it going to take to make all this extra electricity. Just wondering."

She's right. The only time the "fill-up" cost is ever talked about they just say "a few dollars." So I did some calculating from data I found at Wikipedia for the Nissan LEAF. [Yes, I know it's a bit long winded but I think you'll enjoy this.]

The Nissan LEAF has a 24 kwh (kilowatt hour) battery. At 10 cents per kwh and assuming perfect conversion of line current to DC and then battery charge the cost to charge the battery from empty would be $2.40.

But it isn't just the cost of the charge that needs to be evaluated. There's also the TIME to recharge.

On 240VAC 30 amp circuit the charge time is 8 hours. On 115VAC 15 amp household outlet the charge time would be about 4 times as long, or 32 hours. They provide this type of charging for "convenience use when making stops or for emergency charging." They tell you to count on about 5 miles of range per HOUR of charge time by this method. Nissan has developed a fast charger that can fully refuel 80% of the 100-mile range of a LEAF in ... 30 minutes. You can buy one for $16,800. (Be careful though, because "Nissan warns that if fast charging is the primary way of recharging, then the normal and gradual battery capacity loss is about 10% more than regular 220-volt charging over a 10-year period.")


Enviros and 'Lectric car apologists will try to tell you that all of these limitations are just because the technology is "new" and it will improve rapidly as more people buy the things and by becoming mainstream the car companies will compete with each other and solve all the problems. But electric cars are NOT new. I rode in one in Denver that dad took from the University to Cinderella City to show off to normal people. That was about 40 years ago. FORTY!

Why can gasoline engines get the same range on a couple gallons of gasoline that 'Lectrics get on 32 hours worth of power into the biggest electric heater you can plug into your wall socket? Even though gasoline engines are less than a quarter as efficient as electric motors? Because gasoline has a TREMENDOUS energy content.

I'll quote from a blog post I wrote in July 2008:

"A single gallon of gasoline contains 131.76 megajoules of energy, compared to 2.1 megajoules in a stick of dynamite. 1 gallon of gas therefore equals 63 sticks of dynamite.
An average lightning bolt releases 500 megajoules, or 3.8 gallons of gasoline energy."

Now, going full circle back to the Nissan LEAF ... that 24 kwh battery pack it carries can hold 86 megajoules. That's 0.65 gallons of gasoline. (86 MEGAjoules sounded like a lot for a second there, didn't it!) Cost to fill up: $3.69 per gallon equivalent. Well, at least it's got that in common with gasoline powered cars.

Posted by JohnGalt at 11:01 PM | Comments (3)
But jk thinks:

I been thinkin' 'bout this...

1) You left Chevy Volt Catches Fire, Again out of an otherwise comprehensive post.

2) I just bought a battery for the mister2. Fossil that I am, I winced when AutoZone® said $102. Hybrid buyers are warned that they will have to replace the batteries in five-seven years. I don't think many internalize that and I suspect fewer consider that prices for replacement and disposal might escalate in that time.

I picture seven year old Prii being worth as much as my old HP inkjet printer with empty ink cartridges. A clever person might innovate a better third party replacement by then. But it is a Beta none include in calculations.

Posted by: jk at April 21, 2011 9:39 AM
But johngalt thinks:

Part of my original email to auntie that was left on the 3Srcs cutting room floor was this from the Wiki page:

"It is estimated that each battery pack costs Nissan US$18,000 (as of May 2010[update]), and this cost is expected to be halved by mass production."
Posted by: johngalt at April 21, 2011 12:13 PM
But jk thinks:

I think it will be halved -- but by Schumpeterian gales, not "mass production." Batteries? They don't mass-produce those?

I wonder if the new packs will retrofit, how much people will pay for scheduled maintenance on a five year old car, and whether disposal of the old packs might become pricey. (We're reaching a point where you pay as much to dispose of your old flat-screen TV than to buy the new one.)

These are the Bic® lighters of cars, are they not?

Posted by: jk at April 21, 2011 12:32 PM

April 4, 2011

Budget Cuts with a Purpose

Not only does this recommendation by forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania hold promise for reducing the federal budget deficit, it could also reduce energy costs across the board nation wide.

The three researchers audited the forecasting procedures used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose "procedures violated 81% of the 89 relevant forecasting principles," Armstrong noted.

Armstrong and his colleagues recommend Congress end government funding for climate change research as well as other research, government programs, and regulations that assume the planet is warming. They also recommend Congress cease funding organizations that lobby or campaign for global warming.

"Based on our analyses, especially with respect to the violations of the principles regarding objectivity and full disclosure," Armstrong told members of Congress, "we conclude that the manmade global warming alarm is an anti-scientific political movement."

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:26 PM | Comments (0)

New Energy's Failure to Launch

Some may know that Colorado's latest ex-governor has golden-parachuted into academia in Colorado State University's "Center for the New Energy Economy." Today I learned that ex-guv Ritter's salary as the director there is $300,000 per year. (No word on the pension details.) But the news here is not his ridiculous salary. Rather, it is his apparently complete lack of knowledge on the subject of his office. He recently attended an organized debate at NYU where he and a "new energy" partner attempted to persuade some of the 33 percent undecideds in the audience of the premise: "Clean energy can drive America's economic recovery." From Vince Carroll in the Denver Post:

Before the Oxford Union-style debate, 46 percent of the audience registered support for the proposition, 21 percent were opposed and 33 percent were undecided. Afterward, opinion had made a dramatic shift, to 43 percent in favor, 47 percent against and 10 percent undecided.

And no wonder. Ritter and his colleague, Kassia Yanosek of the U.S. Partnership for Renewable Energy Finance, relied upon anecdote, personal experience and hopeful thinking more than hard data ó and seemed frustrated the other side kept rattling off facts.

So Ritter was so "persuasive" that over two-thirds of the undecideds left the debate agreeing with his opponents. He even managed to scare off one in twelve of those who came in already agreeing with him. I think Carroll closed this story best: "The New Energy Economy is a catchy slogan for a political campaign. But it leaves something to be desired as a substitute for substance."

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:05 PM | Comments (0)

April 3, 2011

Tentativeness in Science and Public Policy

My involvement in several DAWG debates on Facebook prompted me to look up examples of historic scientific errors. I found the 2004 article Error and the Nature of Science by University of Minnesota historian and philosopher of biology, Dr. Douglas Allchin.

Allchin, who appears to have been an adherent to the climate change "consensus" at the time, gives what appears to be a thorough list of possible sources of error in science. He calls it a "spectrum of error types." Among them are perceptual bias, reasoning error, overgeneralization, and "fraud, faulty peer review, and other mistaken judgements of credibility." Okay, so I'm very intrigued by this point. Here is a science historian looking for ways to protect and defend the reputation and validity of the scientific method, not just from those with an anti-science agenda (religionists) but from the errors of incompetent or unethical scientists.

But what is the intent of this analysis? It seems a clue can be found in the summary statement of the "spectrum of error types" where he writes,

The remedy for tentativeness in science is active analysis of potential errors, guided by an awareness of error types. Analysis may qualify the scope or certainty of conclusions and guide policy accordingly.

Earlier the author uses tentativeness as a euphemism for the inherent uncertainty in science. So in his summary he wants a "remedy" for the absense of the power of science to "guide policy" through greater "certainty of conclusions."

So what began as, in my estimation, a rejection of the influence of democratic principles (consensus) in science evolved into a suggestion of absolutism in science instead. Katie bar the door!

In the case of global warming mankind has been fortunate in that, since 2004, evidence of one of Allchin's most egregious error types has come to public light through Climategate. It is frightening to contemplate how much greater the political consensus could have been by now without that revelation.

Posted by JohnGalt at 4:04 PM | Comments (4)
But Keith Arnold thinks:

Good science is not the subject of a majority vote. Ask Galileo. And that applies even more today, when the votes of so many members of the so-called "consensus" have been bought with grants, manufactured through the bias of doctrinaire political agenda, or produced by peer browbeating.

Global warming - or climate change, or whatever this month's current euphemism is - either is happening or is not, and no amount of tracts, broadsides, and soundbites is going to change that; Mother Nature reads neither Newsweek nor the polls. I assert it's not, and that anyone saying otherwise is a fraud.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at April 4, 2011 11:43 AM
But jk thinks:

Eppur si muove: the only answer to those who claim "consensus."

Posted by: jk at April 4, 2011 12:55 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:

Keith, there is no question that climate change is occurring. There's also no question that it's been occurring since the planet first manifested 4 billion or so years ago.

The real issue is whether or not climate change is man-caused. One can perhaps argue that man does indeed impact and change the climate, but he would then have to acknowledge that so do the trees, oceans and other flora/fauna. To imply that man should, or even could, exist with no impact whatsoever is preposterous. The ultimate question is whether or not our use of technological devices pose an existential threat to the planet. I find that to be equally preposterous.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at April 4, 2011 3:42 PM
But johngalt thinks:

iPhones. I'm not so quick to exonerate the existential threat to the planet from iPhones.

Posted by: johngalt at April 4, 2011 6:01 PM

March 30, 2011


Posted by JohnGalt at 11:59 AM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

The geek-police may be around to reposess my propeller beanie for so gleefully posting this 'toon but it is clearly true more often than not. From the first link in JK's post above:

In addition to political obstacles, Obama faces technical ones. Legislation signed by President George W. Bush in 2007 called on oil refiners to use minimum amounts of biofuels, including 16 billion gallons a year of cellulosic ethanol by 2022. Though substantial amounts of venture capital ‚ÄĒ and government subsidies ‚ÄĒ have gone into pilot plants, commercial viability has remained elusive.
Posted by: johngalt at March 30, 2011 2:54 PM

March 23, 2011

CO2 = Gas of Life

Yesterday I made a bald assertion that "CO2 is not a pollutant." [4th comment] Today I'll give evidence.

Good News Earth and it's inhabitants need more, not less, CO2. More CO2 means:

- More Plant Growth
- Plants need less water
- More food per acre
- More robust habitats and ecosystems

CO2 is Earth's greatest airborne fertilizer. Without it - No Life On Earth!

** For additional peer-reviewed scientific references and an in-depth discussion of the science supporting our position, please visit Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental Planel on Climate Change (, or CO2 Science (

The site also presents this nifty graph of observed vs. UN IPCC predicted global temperatures since 2001.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:43 PM | Comments (2)
But jk thinks:

100% agree on CO2. I actually believe I have been making that particular bold assertion as well for some time.

Your bolder and even more thought provoking assertion was that by joining too enthusiastically into the desire for next-generation energy, I was giving aid and comfort to those who say "Oil is evil."

The futurist in me gets agog with the idea of a Bussard reactor in a container crate. Just drop it off in Lafayette or Timbuktu and get years of inexpensive power. You reminded me that it is also important to defend the technology that brought billions of people out of poverty. I need to defend current producers as staunchly as I defend John Rockefeller.

Posted by: jk at March 23, 2011 3:45 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Aye. Before we can make it to the future we have to keep living in the present. Enviros like to say, "Live simply, so that others may simply live." What is more simple than gasoline and SOVs? Ever tried harnessing a horse to a buggy?

Posted by: johngalt at March 23, 2011 5:02 PM

March 21, 2011

Not That Much Change

Forbes' Patrick Michaels called General Motors a liar for the claim that their Volt hybrid is an "all-electric vehicle" and the onboard generator is only to extend its range. That's a serious charge, considering the huge federal subsidy to buyers of the car is based on that dubious premise.

Motor Trend dishes the tech: [Last October, I should note]

"It's not a hybrid! It's an electric car with a range-extending, gas-powered generator onboard." That was the party line during most of the masterfully orchestrated press rollout of what we've been promised will be the most thoroughly new car since, what, the Chrysler Turbine? The Lunar Rover? Well, the cat is now out of the bag, and guess what? It is a hybrid, after all. Yes, Virginia, the Chevy Voltís gas engine does turn the wheels. Sometimes.

The salient difference between the Volt and the Prius is that the Prius' gas engine turns on at 60 mph and the Volt's at 100 mph. Motor Trend explains this as a second electric motor giving the Volt its top-end boost but glosses over the fact that the second motor, called a motor-generator, doesn't appear to recharge the battery through regenerative braking as the Prius does. In their diagram they show only "power in" from the engine and motor-generator of the Volt.

So is the Volt better or worse than the Prius? Or even really that much different?

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:31 PM | Comments (7)
But jc thinks:

Here's some change for you and your FFF brothers:

Posted by: jc at March 22, 2011 5:13 PM
But jk thinks:

You permanently misunderstand. Other than perhaps AlexC who works in Oil extraction, none of us has a great love of fossil fuels.

Ganos (in your link) suggests that "venture capitalists should have their checkbooks handy." I'm all for it and have annoyed a couple of my friends to no end with my belief in biomass -- specifically engineering microbes to consume dog poop and excrete biodiesel.

But Mister Ganos and I are content to wait for some bright kids to develop the ultracapacitor or superconnective cable, or lightning capture (or dogpooppower!) There's no shortcut. Throwing billions at ethanol or synfuels just delays and defunds what will be the real successor.

Posted by: jk at March 22, 2011 5:32 PM
But johngalt thinks:

For those not familiar with the acronym, FFF stands for "fossil-fuel freedom." It's a bit of an anachronism though since the discovery that geological hydrocarbon fuels don't come from dead dinosaurs. Nonetheless, I'm proud to be a proponent of FFF.

And you can count me with brother AC for our great love of conventional geologic fuels. Repeat after me: "CO2 is not a pollutant." Poof - filtered combustion of hydrocarbons is no longer a threat to earth-kind.

Of the three proposed energy dreams you may be surprised that I put the most faith in the harnessing of lightning. Super capacitors have an inherent problem with spontaneous instantaneous self-discharge (explosion) and even if and when room-temperature superconductors are developed we can waste loads of cheap energy before spending as much as those new materials will cost to replace aluminum conductors.

And by the way - I'm suspicious of the 70% loss claim. Let's see the data on that one. It's probably closer to 7%.

Posted by: johngalt at March 22, 2011 7:18 PM
But jk thinks:

Bussard fusion holds no special place in brother jg's oily heart?

I would like something that is cheaper and would not support Hugo Chavez. And if it is dog poop, my condo complex is the Saudi Arabia of dog poop...

Posted by: jk at March 22, 2011 7:54 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Does it require a government subsidy? If so, its gotta go. Seriously.

Want something that is cheaper than oil or natural gas? Dream on. They're regulated and taxed to death and still can't be beat in the free market without subsidies to their competitors.

"Saudi Arabia of dog poop." Awesome line, but I think you had some competition in the Wisconsin state capitol rotunda for a few weeks last month.

Posted by: johngalt at March 23, 2011 1:26 AM
But johngalt thinks:

Lest readers think I have no imagination, nor faith in technology, I must explain that I put great personal value on finding new ways to cheaply and safely power our abundantly prosperous lives. BUT - the incessant drumbeat of "oil is evil" must be opposed. Now. It is a column of communist tanks. I welcome any lover of liberty to stand with me in its path. With you or without you, I'll be here with my hand up.

Posted by: johngalt at March 23, 2011 1:32 AM

March 17, 2011

That's Not Allowed in Science

Berkeley Professor Richard Muller: "The justification would not have survived peer review in any journal I am willing to publish in."

One of those crazed right wing lunatics at UCal Berkeley, spreading lies about Gaia...

Hat-tip: Nick Schultz

Posted by John Kranz at 1:03 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

3:45"And what is the result in my mind? Quite frankly, as a scientist, I now have a list of people whose papers I won't read anymore."

Science is not a fuzzy subject. I am heartened every time I hear another actual scientist call out these charlatans. It reassures me that science has a future after all.

Posted by: johngalt at March 17, 2011 4:02 PM

March 11, 2011


The repercussions of the 7th largest earthquake in recorded history are just being understood but there's still time to take a shot at the happiest city in America and one of her sacred cows - windpow .. pow .. poof.

Whilst driving my one-ton diesel pickup (by myself) to pick up a lunch burrito I happened to pass Boulder's swank new "multi-use" development that occupies the old Crossroads Mall site. It's called Twenty-Nineth Street. (No, not 29th Street, "Twenty-Nineth Street.") On the most prominent corner of the property, 28th and Arapahoe, they've installed one a them newfangled "wind turbines." "Free energy from the earf" I think they call it. And on a day when wind had whipped a "controlled burn" out of control in the mountains, the weather reports warn of "60 mile per hour gusts" and the average wind speed at Atlantis Farm has been 15 mph or higher all morning the wind turbine is - not spinning. It twists in the wind alright, and the blades aren't completely frozen but if it completes a full revolution in a minute I'd be surprised.

Could it be that these things require, not just subsidized installation but subsidized maintenance? Stop. Stop! You're killing me!

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:21 PM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

More of them green jobs, man! Somebody's gotta fix those things!

I wonder if they lock in high winds. The one in front of the Lafayette library never spins when it's really whippin', yet I frequently see it spinning in a lighter breeze. Safety issue?

Posted by: jk at March 11, 2011 3:58 PM

It won't be long now

We've now had two horrific earthquakes in as many weeks and we can be sure that the Lefties will not allow two tragedies to go to waste. Thus, it is just a matter of time before they blame global warming for these catastrophies. The Refugee would like to offer the bounty of a Starbucks to the first Three Sourcer who posts such a news item from the lame-stream media.

Posted by Boulder Refugee at 12:12 PM | Comments (5)
But jk thinks:

I'm in!

Posted by: jk at March 11, 2011 1:16 PM
But jk thinks:

Grande Cappuccino, dry, please: Today's tsunami: This is what climate change looks like

Posted by: jk at March 11, 2011 1:50 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:

MONDO HEH!! I'll make it a venti. You name the time.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at March 11, 2011 3:36 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Starbucks causes climate change.

Posted by: johngalt at March 11, 2011 9:33 PM
But jk thinks:

Actually, I was going to suggest we tie this up with nanobrewer's suggestion of an actual corporeal meeting at The Cannon Mine in Lafayette. While I feel safer with our opinions on our own side of the Boulder County Line, we must -- on occasion -- be brave.

Played properly, we could meet nb and perhaps TerriG.

Posted by: jk at March 12, 2011 11:33 AM

February 27, 2011

Silly Governor, Laws Don't Create Jobs

Yesterday I wrote about thousands of "clean energy" jobs that could be eliminated if Colorado's largest power company cuts its solar power subsidy in half (per installation). I suggested that those jobs probably wouldn't have existed without the subsidy, which distorted market signals to create economic activity for an economically unviable product.

Today our former Governor explains how these unsustainable jobs were created and still has the gall to suggest we do even more of it.

Building this new economy starts with understanding how clean energy legislation can create jobs. During my four-year term in Colorado, I signed 57 pieces of clean energy legislation. In 2007, for example, we doubled the proportion of energy in the state that is required to come from renewable sources to 20 percent by 2020. In 2010, we increased that to 30 percent for our biggest utility. As a result, Colorado now ranks fourth among the 50 states in its number of clean energy workers per capita, and 1,500 clean energy companies call our state home ó an 18 percent increase since 2004. Wind- and solar-energy companies that have built factories and opened offices in Colorado have brought in thousands of new jobs.

But governor, have you not heard that the American economy is no longer robust enough to support elective boutique energy "just in case" environmental scientists might be partially correct? It's about as popular with voters right now as free pensions and sweetheart health insurance for unionized Wisconsin teachers. Feel-good energy layoffs are happening now in the U.S. European plants are closing now. Why not just wait until the science and technology is sufficient for sustainable energy to be sustainable? It will save a lot of wasted money and effort building new plants and then closing them.

Posted by JohnGalt at 4:35 PM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

The answer to your most excellent yet rhetorical question is a review corner.

I'm a crazy mad fan of Virginia Postrel. I bought her "Substance and Style" for everyone who has ever worked for me since it came out. Yet, somehow I had missed her "The Future and its Enemies." With the title props to Dr. Popper, and my appreciation for the author, I cannot believe I let 12 years go by.

I got a hardcover as a freebie for a Reason donation (yes, and the T-shirt in the coffeehouse vid). I had left the Kindle® in the car yesterday and decided to read a real book.

Merciful Zeus! Just a couple chapters in, but she resurrects the famed "Baptists and Bootleggers" theory to bifurcate stasists and dynamists. The enviros want us living in caves so we don't spill a drop of oil, the Buchananite conservative wing wants us living in a tiny village so nobody can be divorced or gay, and the VP Gores of the world want to control every facet of life for everybody.

What Hayek calls the "Party of Life" and she "Dynamists" are thusly badly outnumbered.

She wrote it in 1998 with the full promise of the Internet in front of us. But if she had waited for the "Green Energy Economy," she would have a perfect example. With apologies to Swift and Toole, the dunces are truly arrayed in confederacy against us.

Posted by: jk at February 28, 2011 11:12 AM

February 26, 2011

"Sustainable" Energy Unsustainable

Live by the subsidy - die by the subsidy.

More than 200 supporters of solar energy rallied on the west steps of the state Capitol this afternoon to protest Xcel Energy's decision to cut incentives for solar system installations.

Had this been a "Teabaggers" rally the narrative would have been "Nearly 200 opponents of the Obama Administration rallied ..." But I digress.

"It has created a lot of fear in the industry. My job is on the line," said Gary Gantzer, a Boulder resident and installer for Namaste Solar who was at the rally with his two young children.

About 5,300 people work in the solar installation industry, and insiders estimate half those jobs could be at risk if the Public Utilities Commission lets the proposal stand.

So what you're saying is, those jobs might never have existed in the first place had those subsidies not been given. Given by whom, you may ask. Ratepayers.

A 2 percent charge on utility bills supports the program and other efforts to promote renewable energy development.

How much subsidy, you may ask.

Since 2006, the program has provided $274 million in incentives for 9,346 installations on homes and small businesses.

9,346 incentives over a 5-year period is about 1,870 subsidies per year. And the average cost of each subsidy: $29,317.

Just for fun - Number of years the average solar subsidy could pay the electric bill of an average American home? 306 (and 5 months.)

Posted by JohnGalt at 12:25 PM | Comments (5)
But johngalt thinks:

Mike Rosen took on this subject in his third hour today. His first impression was the same as mine - Subsidies created those jobs in the first place!

He also did a good job exposing how this is average rate payers helping solar proponents put expensive power systems on their homes at little or no cost to themselves.

And many callers defended the program on the basis that "fossil fuels have huge subsidies too." Yet not a single one of them could give an example of said subsidies. To paraphrase multiple callers - "I just read that they're there, and they're numerous, and they're huge." (No word whether it was from an authoritaritive source, like the internets.)

Posted by: johngalt at February 28, 2011 3:00 PM
But JC thinks:

Here is an example of subsidies.
Please comment to let me know if this resource is acceptable to you.

Posted by: JC at March 4, 2011 1:35 PM
But JC thinks:

"Just for fun - Number of years the average solar subsidy could pay the electric bill of an average American home? ...306 [years] (and 5 months.)"

Just for MORE fun:
Estimated number of people on the planet = 6.9 billion

Estimated global subsidies for oil in 2008 = 312 billion

Estimated U.S. Energy Subsidies (tax expenditures (TE)) = 6.74 billion (subtracting TE subsidies for ALL renewables)
Hold that thought - this is for U.S. subsidies alone

How many years could these U.S. subsidies power a single, average American home if every person on the planet had an average American home? Well? How many?

Thought experiment: What kind of impact would there be on global energy markets if every person on the planet had an "average American home"? (frightening)

Subsidizing Big Oil:

Posted by: JC at March 5, 2011 10:22 AM
But jk thinks:

You asked if the DOE site was an acceptable source. To be fair, I was still thinking about it -- I place moderate faith in gub'mint statistics and the DOE is toward the bottom.

Then you link to far more partisan sources.

We don't agree on much around here, but I suspect all ThreeSourcers would agree that neither oil, ethanol, nor unicorn farts should be subsidized. Let them all compete in the free market.

However, what many opponents call subsidies are simply standard features in the tax code. I'd love to clean up the tax code, but in the meantime, the only way a large company can exist in the US is to take advantage of all the loopholes.

GE and Whirlpool use these to pay pretty much zero taxes, but because they're making Energy Star appliances -- and grease the right palms -- they get less flack than the big bad oil companies.

Real subsidies need to go bye-bye, no arguments 'round here. But do you think they just happened last week? You want to subsidize "green" energy? In decades, that will be what's keeping us from transitioning to something better.

Posted by: jk at March 5, 2011 11:09 AM
But johngalt thinks:

Thank you for bringing the debate here from Facebook JC. When my online time is limited it will go to this page before any other.

If you have a point to make other than villification of American prosperity then you'll have to spell it out for me. That's a lot of info there.

But I think you may have mistaken the fun I poked at callers having no clue how government subsidizes oil for my personal approval of said subsidies, or denial that they exist. I want them ALL killed. All corporate welfare, whether for conventional, productive energy or for alternative, wishful energy companies - zeroed. We can argue about research later but I think we should agree on the corporate subsidy point. (Caveat: Namaste Solar and other small, local businesses fall under the heading of "corporation.")

It took until recently for me to realize it but when a Republican politician says he is for "all of the above" on energy policy he isn't just saying he is pro-drilling. Unless he says otherwise you must assume he is "pro-subsidy" for "all of the above." And if this can be verified, OFF WITH HIS HEAD! (Electorally, of course.)

Posted by: johngalt at March 5, 2011 11:23 AM

January 31, 2011

Quote of the Day

We are now in the season when the media tells us over and over again that "weather is not climate" and that the natural variations in the temperature do not, repeat not, affect the credibility of climate change. I actually believe this, although in just a few months the fiddlehead ferns will be poking up through the forest floor and the media will be back to reporting each and every hot spell as conclusive proof that climate change is already here.

My totally unscientific conclusion based on close study of the media: weather isn't climate in the months which have "r" in them. The rest of the year, it is. -- Walter Russell Mead

Posted by John Kranz at 10:40 AM | Comments (0)

January 17, 2011

The F-Word

I think ThreeSourcers would enjoy Ed Driscoll's "Left Wing Creationism." He links and excerpts a NY Observer review:

Mr. Mnookin was discussing pediatric health with a new parent in his early 40s who explained that he and his wife had decided to delay their child's vaccines. On what sources had he based this weighty decision? Questions along these lines were met with murk. "I don't know what to say," the man replied. "It just feels like a lot for a developing immune system to deal with."

It was this F-word--feels--that left Mr. Mnookin justifiably gobsmacked, and it serves as the departure point for The Panic Virus, an attempt to explain how thousands of otherwise sophisticated Americans could make a fatuous decision to opt out of what is arguably modernity's greatest medical achievement. Most children "exempted" from vaccines (a fittingly ridiculous term, as if the kids place out via AP exam) are not low-information progeny.

Driscoll goes on to suggest that some on the left take an anti-scientific position on climate, including a photo that's worth a click.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:28 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

I'm glad to read that others are saying it too: "Science" is destroying the credibility of the scientific method.

He doesn't offer a motive (other than "to advance an agenda.") I will - to advance a philosophy of Relativism in the public sphere. This is a necessary component of the mysticism known as "societal good."

Posted by: johngalt at January 17, 2011 2:14 PM

January 4, 2011

TS Eliot AND Global Warming

In one post! Kind of a segue unto itself, Steven Hayward sees the shifting anti-determinism of DAWG advocates in T.S. Eliot's "Burnt Norton:"

Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future,
And time future contained in time past

UPDATE: Taranto mocks:

Posted by John Kranz at 12:28 PM | Comments (0)

December 29, 2010

Quote of the Day II

So laugh away at the global warmists. And don't even feel bad that they're right about the weather-climate distinction. After all, they forget about it every summer. -- James Taranto
Posted by John Kranz at 4:49 PM | Comments (0)

Walkin' The DAWG

Think this might go over...

Posted by John Kranz at 11:27 AM | Comments (0)

December 28, 2010


If there's one thing that unites ThreeSourcers, its whipping the DAWG. Larry Bell, writing for, presents some excellent facts and uses them to expose the media's DAWG training. The Refugee has no insightful opinion to add, but if you want some more facts for the next time you get into a debate with a DAWG lover, read the whole thing.

Posted by Boulder Refugee at 12:11 PM | Comments (2)
But jk thinks:

Awesome. Of course, now I'll be up all night worrying about falling sea levels!

The part I dug was "if you want a grant for a research project in climatology, it is written into the document that there 'must' be a focus on global warming. ... That is really bad, because you start asking for the answer you want to get." It vexes me that a scientist who gets any funding from an oil company is tainted -- yet a researcher who would be working at Taco Bell if his global warming grant evaporated is considered pure as the driven snow that they used to have in Britain and Philadelphia.

Posted by: jk at December 28, 2010 12:43 PM
But jk thinks:

Oh -- and props for the headline -- nicely played!

Posted by: jk at December 28, 2010 12:48 PM

December 21, 2010

Quote of the Day

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had it right when she scorned consensus as "the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner 'I stand for consensus'?"
Steven F. Hayward in a very worthwhile piece on the difference between bipartisan progress and consensus,
Posted by John Kranz at 11:42 AM | Comments (2)
But Boulder Refugee thinks:

Sounds like she's describing the EU.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at December 21, 2010 12:23 PM
But jk thinks:

'Course, the Iron Lady gets Quote of Forever for: "The trouble with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

Posted by: jk at December 21, 2010 5:02 PM

December 20, 2010

Dr. Popper, Call your Office!

John Hinderaker at PowerLine reprises a ten year old article in The Independent suggesting the end of snowfall in Britain: "Children just aren't going to know what snow is."

Then, PowerLine helpfully posts several pictures of road closures, digging out, and even some sweet little British urchins enjoying snow.

It's fun to ridicule the warmists because they are so often wrong, but their errors are in fact significant: a scientific theory that implies predictions that turn out to be wrong, is false. A principal feature of climate hysteria is its proponents' unwillingness to be judged by the standards that govern real science.

Predictive power, babies, predictive power.

UPDATE: Don Surber piles on with an xtraNormal vid.

UPDATE II: Supporting the "parting shot:"

LONDON Ė The Christmas travel season turned angry and chaotic Monday as British officials struggled to clear snow and ice that paralyzed rail and air links and spawned cancellations and delays stranding thousands around the world.

More than 48 hours after Britain's last snowfall, some furious passengers with boarding passes for Monday flights were not even allowed into London's Heathrow Airport. Inside, piles of garbage grew and some people slept on terminal floors.

That's weather, not climate you trogs!

Posted by John Kranz at 11:08 AM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

On the parting shot in the Xtranormal vid: Snap!

Posted by: johngalt at December 20, 2010 2:42 PM

December 14, 2010

Lush Wheaty Goodness!

I like to suggest, in a discussion on deleterious anthropogenic warming of the globe, usually after a beer, that we should let plants vote on carbon-dioxide reduction. "How would we," slurs I, "react if the plants floated oxygen-reduction legislation?"

Tim Blair takes the cause in the Daily Telegraph. Being Australian, I'm going to go out on the limb and suggest that he might have downed a Foster's or two before typing (I have no empirical proof of this scurrilous smear).

Climate change alarmists hate it when we refer to carbon dioxide as "plant food", even though the description is accurate. And what a food it is! Earlier this year, the ABC's Landline program reported on an experiment conducted by the Victorian Department of Primary Industry, which blasted a patch of wheat with higher CO2 levels:

The wheat liked it! Hey Mikey!

Hat-tip: Instapundit

Posted by John Kranz at 11:09 AM | Comments (0)

December 8, 2010

New NASA DAWG Models

...suggest that doubling the amount of CO2 could raise temps by 1.64 degrees Celsius.

According to Lahouari Bounoua of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and other scientists from NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), existing models fail to accurately include the effects of rising CO2 levels on green plants. As green plants breathe in CO2 in the process of photosynthesis -- they also release oxygen, the only reason that there is any in the air for us to breathe -- more carbon dioxide has important effects on them.

In particular, green plants can be expected to grow as they find it easier to harvest carbon from the air around them using energy from the sun: thus introducing a negative feedback into the warming/carbon process. Most current climate models don't account for this at all, according to Bounoua. Some do, but they fail to accurately simulate the effects -- they don't allow for the fact that plants in a high-CO2 atmosphere will "down-regulate" and so use water more efficiently.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:55 AM | Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:

Jeez, brother. I know you're the master of understatement but this is a prize winner of the genre.

Let's try, "doubled CO2 could raise temps by JUST 1.64 degrees Celsius."

And let's add this teensy little excerpt written by the UK Register's Lewis Page:

It now appears, however, that the previous/current state of climate science may simply have been wrong and that there's really no need to get in an immediate flap.


Quantitatively, the new study shows that the current annual increase of 2ppm per year would take centuries to double from 390 to 780 ppm, at which point the theoretical global temperature would still be less warm than the UN IPCC target of 2 degrees Celsius or less - with NO CARBON CONTROLS WHATSOEVER.

Posted by: johngalt at December 8, 2010 2:51 PM
But jk thinks:

Mondo heh.

Agreed on the gobsmackedness of the assertions, but unclear on the standing of the study and source. I'd like to read about it in an article that didn't use the term "NASA and NOAA boffins" several times.

Posted by: jk at December 8, 2010 3:37 PM

November 21, 2010

I *heart* Coal

I've been desirous of an "I love Coal" T-shirt for quite a while now, probably since Climategate hit the news - possibly in response to Colorado's legislature voting to subsidize coal's competition. I've been a denier since before it was cool, but now it's cool! I thought I would have to design and print my own. False.


Anyone who wants to join me can use this refer-a-friend link and reward me with a $10 Cafe Press credit (because you're so thoughtful.)

Posted by JohnGalt at 11:42 AM | Comments (0)

October 19, 2010

More fallout from the Dr. Hal Lewis Resignation

One of the Update links at the linked article in the Dr. Hal Lewis resignation story was a copy of the APS's public response with rebuttal by Dr. Lewis and two others interspersed in context. While the resignation letter itself is scathing evidence of Global Warming as hoax, it doesn't directly address the issue of "well-funded people believing" and thus, it "not going away." This does: [First the APS' statement, then Lewis' rebuttal.]

Dr. Lewisí specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding.
The chair of the Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) that re-endorsed the 2007 APS Statement on Climate Change sits on the science advisory board of a large international bank The bank has a $60+ billion Green portfolio, which it wishes to assure investors is safeÖnot to mention their income from carbon trading. Other members of this board include current IPCC chief Pachauri and Lord Oxburgh, of Climategate exoneration fame. The viability of these banks activities depends on continued concern over CO2 emissions. Then there is the member of the Kleppner Committee (that reviewed the APS 2007 Statement prior to POPA) who served on that committee while under consideration for the position of Chief Scientist at BP. The position had been vacated when Steve Koonin left to take a post in the administration at DOE. Soon after the Kleppner Committee report in late 2009, this committee member took the BP job. BP had previously funded the new Energy Laboratory at Berkeley, which was headed by current Energy Secretary Steve Chu.

UPDATE: Reformatted for clarity and bolded text for emphasis.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:09 PM | Comments (0)

October 18, 2010

Global Warming takes another body blow -

- This time from a renowned nuclear scientist.

Last November 20 I posted this first news of Climategate, which included James Delingpole's headline: Climategate: The final nail in the coffin of 'antropogenic global warming?'

JK was more circumspect but by December 1 admitted that the scandal was a "game changer." Yet, he still hedged: "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."

Today, or rather October 8, the hoax is exposed.

Harold Lewis - Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, Presidentís Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board - resigned from the American Physical Society over events that have transpired since Climategate.

In discussing the publicly released resignation letter Anthony Watts says,

This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.

From the letter:

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

He then goes on to expose the calculated lengths that APS management went to defeat his efforts to establish a Topic Group on Climate Change within the APS. Sharp, smart and irretrievably damaging to APS and the Climate Change movement.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:46 PM | Comments (3)
But jk thinks:

Put me down as still hedging, brother. The letter you link says "What I would really like to see though, is this public resignation letter given the same editorial space as Michael Mann in today’s Washington Post." I fear this sermon will be heard only by the choir.

It's "Green Week!" at work. Thankfully, as a remote worker, I am impervious to all but eye rolling. Onsite workers went without lights for some time today and were told to shut off and unplug computers overnight for baseline current measurements.

This is from a private company, headed by a CEO who doesn't generally buy in to such nonsense. I guess they are buying off the earnest young employees. Whatever the case, we ain't won yet.

Posted by: jk at October 18, 2010 6:36 PM
But johngalt thinks:

I included your complete original "hedge" on purpose, to show it's a step-by-step process.

The believers do still believe, and as long as well funded people believe it is not going to go away. BUT, this does expose a hoax.

Posted by: johngalt at October 19, 2010 2:44 PM
But JC thinks:

No hoaxes here just a bunch of horses blowing hot air out their tail pipes! I have been studying this issue for several years. Based on the recent increase in reputable scientific organizations that accept "antropogenic global warming" as fact, Harold Lewis' single resignation letter fails to provide "an important moment in science history". The one and only effect of his resignation letter is that of providing fuel for the bloggers and non-believers.

Posted by: JC at April 1, 2011 9:47 PM

September 20, 2010

But, the science was settled!

I know I beat my Popperian Dead Horse too much. But until I get word that light bulbs will be legal, you'll have to read...

Doctor Barry Marshall resorted to Frankensteinian ("frahnk -in-STEEN-ee-an") theatrics to overcome the conventional wisdom.

"I was met with constant criticism that my conclusions were premature," Marshall later wrote. "My results were disputed and disbelieved, not on the basis of science but because they simply could not be true."

It is often claimed that doctors were wedded to the idea that ulcers were caused by excess stomach acid, or that they didn't believe that bacteria could grow in the stomach. In fact, the main reason for the scepticism, says Richard Harvey of the Frenchay Hospital in Bristol, UK, was that four-fifths of ulcers were not in the stomach but further down the digestive tract.

Yet we now know that Marshall was right. After downing his bacterial concoction, he soon became far more ill than he had expected, vomiting and developing stomach inflammation. Later studies confirmed the theory. His discovery made it possible for millions of people to be cured of their ulcers with antibiotics, instead of having to take acid-reducing drugs every day.

Science, baby! You want consensus, go into market research.

Hat-tip: Instapundit

Posted by John Kranz at 5:20 PM | Comments (0)

September 17, 2010

Black Helicopters Appear in Broad Daylight...

...embarking from the White House.

Republican candidate for CO governor Dan Maes took some heat in early August for suggesting that statist influences at the United Nations are inserting themselves into state and municipal governments through an organization called ICLEI. I'll admit that if you've never heard of these self-important busybodies the whole idea can sound a bit conspiratorial. Even our own jk joked "See the bikes all come in black helicopters..."

Yet today, from the "just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not really out to get me" department, we have the White House's Ocean Policy Initiative.

What the administration in effect is putting in place is an alternative power structure that circumvents existing state and local decision-making bodies and replaces them with made-in-Washington zoning. All of this is taking place without the consent of Congress, without the consent of the governors, and, most important of all, without the consent of the governed.

Suddenly the idea that similar efforts to influence local decision-making by the U.N. might "threaten our personal freedoms" doesn't seem like such a crackpot remark. JK commented "Let's pick smarter fights than this, boys." I'll counter with, "Someone has to start connecting the dots for voters sooner or later. Let's hope that when they do it isn't too late to get our liberty back using the ballot box."

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:06 PM | Comments (0)

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 ó 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 Ďeconomic ecologyí 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 ó 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...

Posted by: jk at August 30, 2010 3:08 PM
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, 2010

Ding Dong the DAWG is Dead

I'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.

The reality is, however, that the crusade was doomed from the start because of its own inherent weaknesses. RIP

Posted by John Kranz at 11:50 AM | Comments (0)

June 1, 2010

Oh 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.

Posted by: jk at June 1, 2010 4:18 PM
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:

Bush's Fault!

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 PM

May 28, 2010

King Barack the Verbose

On 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, 2010

Deleterious 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.

ďRather 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,Ē said Easterbrook, speaking on a scientific panel discussion with other climatologists. This, he says, will likely be followed by ďglobal warming from about 2030 to 2060,Ē 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 PM

April 20, 2010

Truth 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 Environmentalismís Dark Side

Those who question global warming alarmistsí 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 scholarsówomen 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 It's an editorial. Oh well, the flicker of hope felt really good for those few minutes. Still check out 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 is affiliated with 'Not Evil, Just Wrong' but I could be wrong, not evil too.

Posted by: johngalt at April 20, 2010 5:23 PM

March 30, 2010

Huh? 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.

ďThere is a great deal of consternation among a lot of us over the readjustment of data that is going on and some of the portrayals that we are seeing,Ē Mr. Bastardi said in a video segment posted recently on AccuWeatherís Web site.

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 PM

It's Okay, Scientists are in Charge

C/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."

One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is "modern democracy", he added. "Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."

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:


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 PM

March 5, 2010

Got 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. 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.

Our nation has vast on-and-offshore oil and natural gas resources that could be produced safely to put this country's economy back on its feet.

But it's not just domestic oil and gas that will provide the jobs and energy our nation needs. Canada, our friendly neighbor to the north and top supplier of oil, will continue to play a vital role as we seek greater energy and economic security.

According to a recent CERI study, the economic impact of Canadian oil sands development is expected to lead to 342,000 U.S. jobs between 2011 and 2015, and an estimated $34 billion to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2015 and $42.2 billion in 2025.

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, 2010

Maybe Obama's not a Socialist after all

On 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 PM

February 19, 2010

Sea 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, 2010

Victory 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.

The sudden pullout of three corporate giants from a leading alliance of businesses and environmental groups could be the death knell for climate change legislation languishing on Capitol Hill.

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. Othersóahem, General Electricóare 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.

The climate bills the House passed in August and Senate liberals are contemplating have stripped away that illusion. Carbon tariffs and other regulations would have damaged heavy manufacturing against global competitors, which explains Caterpillar's exit, while oil companies would suffer as transportation, refining and power generation via natural gas were punished. Then there's the harm to long-run growth, which would slow under the economy-wide drag of new taxes and federal mandates.

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.

"Canada is proud to be the first host country in history to help offset the greenhouse gas emissions of its Olympic Games," said Minister Prentice.

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. "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, 2010

No Statistically Significant Warming

Epic fail.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now Ė suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no Ďstatistically significantí warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Angliaís Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

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? :-)

Posted by: nanobrewer at February 18, 2010 11:59 AM
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 AM

February 11, 2010

Not an AARP card Among Them

A 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 AM

January 4, 2010

My 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 wonít do anything to reduce the earthís 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 AM

Hundreds 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

Posted by: johngalt at January 4, 2010 2:40 PM

December 25, 2009

AGW as Farce

A 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.)

Recent data from many monitors including the CRU, available on, show that the average temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans near the surface of the earth has decreased significantly across the past eight years or so. CO2 is a benign gas essential to life, occurring in past eras at five times present levels. Changes in atmospheric CO2 do not correlate with human emissions of CO2, the latter being entirely trivial in the global balance.

Posted by John Kranz at 6:32 PM | Comments (0)

December 23, 2009

Getting tired of asking for permission


Get yours here.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:35 PM | Comments (0)

Questioning the D

It 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.

In Poland, where temperatures have dropped to as low as -20C in some areas, police appealed for tip-offs about people spotted lying around outside. At least 42 people, most of them homeless, died over the weekend.

In Ukraine 27 people have frozen to death since the thermometer dropped last week. Authorities in Romania said 11 people had succumbed to the chill, and in the Czech Republic the toll was 12. In Germany, where temperatures have fallen to -33C in certain parts, at least seven people are known to have lost their lives in the freezing weather.

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 PM

December 18, 2009

Quote of the Day

What really bothered Roger Simon about the Copenhagen conference:

I realized what it was. We had returned to the Middle Ages.

A high tech Middle Ages, of course, but still the Middle Ages. Forget the Renaissance, forget the Enlightenment, forget Spinoza, Locke, Galileo and everybody else, we had returned to our roots as gullible and idiotic human beings, as willing to believe in the primacy of anthropogenic global warming as we would in the sighting of the Madonna at a river crossing twelve kilometers south of Sienna in 1340.

Posted by John Kranz at 7:05 PM | Comments (0)

December 17, 2009

Evolution to Extinction

Sanctimonious 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:

Posted by: Keith at December 17, 2009 6:11 PM

Quote of the Day

Recently 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

I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Phil [Jones in a Climategate email to Michael Mann]

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.


The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

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.

Posted by: jk at December 17, 2009 1:38 PM

December 15, 2009

Quote of the Day

I 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, 2009

Baby You Can Drive My Car

A good friend of ThreeSources sends this:


Posted by John Kranz at 11:02 AM | Comments (0)

December 10, 2009

Ain't Rocket Science, Baby!

NYTimes (1920):

That Professor Goddard, with his Ďchairí 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 Ė 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, ďThe enlightened newspaper not only ridiculed the idea that rocket propulsion would work in vacuum but it questioned the integrity and professionalism of Goddard.Ē The post goes on to say that ďThe 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)ÖĒ

It appears that some of the attributes of the NYT which make it so untrustworthy and unlovable today are actually cultural characteristics of long standing.

Worth keeping in mind when reading NYT analyses of Climategate.


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.

Posted by: AlexC at December 10, 2009 4:30 PM

December 7, 2009

Quote 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, 2009

How Much for Two Light Snacks?

Washington Times:

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.

As described in The Washington TImes' Inside the Beltway column Tuesday, the multi-media public event to promote Mr. Gore's new book "Our Choice" included $1,209 VIP tickets that granted the holder a photo opportunity with Mr. Gore and a "light snack."

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

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Scientists Hide Global Warming Data
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealth Care Crisis

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 PM

December 1, 2009

Quote of the Day Deux

The 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. Thatís more damning than anything else in the emails. If youíre doing important work that you know will be controversial, you donít lose the data. You document everything you did to the data. You make the data available to others. If you donít do all of those things, people are right to ignore anything you have published about the data. And thatís 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 AM

JG 1, JK 0

I 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.

Iím not trying to suggest that climate change isnít 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 ó seeing trends that accord with their preconceptions and desires. Given the huge stakes in this debate ó the trillions of dollars that might be spent to reduce greenhouse emissions ó itís 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.

Posted by: jk at December 2, 2009 10:01 AM

November 29, 2009

Cleaning up the debate

No, 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."

He added: "These guys called climate scientists have not done any more physics or chemistry than I did. A lifetime in engineering gives you a very good antenna. It also cures people of any self belief they cannot be wrong. You clear up a lot of messes during a lifetime in engineering. I could be wrong on global warming Ė I know that Ė but the guys on the other side don't believe they can ever be wrong."

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, 2009

Quote of the Day

You 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 PM

November 26, 2009

Hide the Decline

Happy Thanksgiving from Michael Mann-
(And the jokesters at Minnesotans for Global Warming)

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 Internet

This 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)


Intapundit notes that Climategate makes the WaPo "In a big way."

Posted by John Kranz at 12:04 PM | Comments (0)

November 21, 2009

The "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,

I'm fairly certain Keith is out of contact right now recovering from an operation, and is not in a position to respond to these attacks. However, the preliminary information I have from others familiar with these data is that the attacks are bogus.

It is unclear that this particular series was used in any of our reconstructions (some of the underlying chronologies may be the same, but I'm fairly certain the versions of these data we have used are based on a different composite and standardization method), let alone any of the dozen other reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature shown in the most recent IPCC report, which come to the conclusion that recent warming is anomalous in a long-term context.

So, even if there were a problem w/ these data, it wouldn't matter as far as the key conclusions regarding past warmth are concerned. But I don't think there is any problem with these data, rather it appears that McIntyre has greatly distorted the actual information content of these data. It will take folks a few days to get to the bottom of this, in Keith's absence.

if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in question. of course, the last time he tried that (w/ our '98 article in Nature), his comment was rejected. For all of the noise and bluster about the Steig et al Antarctic warming, its now nearing a year and nothing has been submitted. So more likely he won't submit for peer-reviewed scrutiny, or if it does get his criticism "published" it will be in the discredited contrarian home journal "Energy and Environment". I'm sure you are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap published in legitimate journals. All they have to do is put it up on their blog, and the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear, pretty soon Druge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their ilk (in this case, The Telegraph were already on it this morning) are parroting the claims. And based on what? some guy w/ no credentials, dubious connections with the energy industry, and who hasn't submitted his claims to the scrutiny of peer review.

Fortunately, the prestige press doesn't fall for this sort of stuff, right?


Revkin again, Sep 29, 2009, 5:18 pm:

thanks heaps.

tom crowley has sent me a direct challenge to mcintyre to start contributing to the reviewed lit or shut up. i'm going to post that soon. just want to be sure that what is spliced below is from YOU ... a little unclear . ?

I'm copying this to Tim, in hopes that he can shed light on the specific data assertions made over at

I'm going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks. peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge building happens, would you agree?

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:

TG has a point: there is no smoking gun here of Dr. Hockey Stick or the NYT reporter trying to extort or directly kneecap a critic. However, I only see a trace of scientific curiosity. I see two professionals spending most of their time spinning, packaging and smearing by association.

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?

Posted by: jk at November 23, 2009 4:09 PM
But Fran Manns thinks:

Climategate Foretold...
‚Äú‚ÄĘ What is the current scientific consensus on the conclusions reached by Drs. Mann, Bradley and Hughes? [Referring to the hockey stick propagated in UN IPCC 2001 by Michael Mann.]
Ans: Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.‚ÄĚ
AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‚ÄėHOCKEY STICK‚Äô GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION, also known as The Wegman report was authored by Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University with the contributions of John T. Rigsby, III, Naval Surface Warfare Center, and Denise M. Reeves, MITRE Corporation.

Posted by: Fran Manns at November 28, 2009 11:16 PM

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 "thereís 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.

Posted by: jk at November 21, 2009 3:15 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

Really JK,
do you need to ask I have to ask, is Revkin a reporter, a blogger, or a co-conspirator

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.

Posted by: nanobrewer at November 22, 2009 6:46 PM
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 AM

November 20, 2009

Woodward 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 Angliaís 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 (11/20): From Climate Depot-
'CRU director admits emails seem to be genuine'

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 ďI told you so.Ē

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' Ö 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 just CAN'T be a coincidence!

Posted by: Lisa M at November 20, 2009 9:06 PM
But jk thinks:


Posted by: jk at November 21, 2009 3:26 PM

November 18, 2009

Sure that's not Billions of degrees?

The Oracle of Carthage speaks:

Conan [O'Brien, talk show host]: Ö 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?

Al [bert A. Gore, Jr, 45th Vice President of the United States and Nobel Laureate]: It definitely is, and it's a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy ó when they think about it at all ó in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot Ö

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 did some research on this as well. Turns out that the thermal gradient for _extremely favorable_ sites (e.g., Calpine's Geyers) is as much as 120C/km. The Goracle's assertion that "most places" have 'incredibly hot' rocks just a couple of Km down is as true as .... well, just about anything he's said in the public sphere!

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).

Posted by: nanobrewer at November 20, 2009 12:18 PM
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.

Posted by: jk at November 20, 2009 1:37 PM

November 5, 2009

Third Bush Term

Here'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.

The Obama administration has rejected the Kyoto Protocol (ensuring it will expire), adopted some of former President George W. Bushís key positions in international climate negotiations, and demurred when asked about reports that the president has decided to skip the December climate summit in Copenhagen. United Nations climate negotiator Yvo de Boer has concluded that it is ďunrealisticĒ to expect the conference to produce a new, comprehensive climate treatyówhich also describes the once-fond hopes for passage of domestic climate legislation this yearóor even in Obamaís first term.

Posted by John Kranz at 3:58 PM | Comments (0)

November 2, 2009

Quote of the Day

Malaria 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.

Mr. Samson is right to ask what spending money on global warming could do for him and his family. The truthful answer? Very little. For a lot less, we could achieve a lot more. -- Bjorn Lomborg

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-Zapper‚ĄĘ 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.

Posted by: jk at November 2, 2009 6:43 PM

October 30, 2009

Stop 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.

Heavy glaciers cause the Earth's crust to flex inward slightly. When glaciers disappear, the crust springs back and the overlaying mountains are thrust skyward, albeit slowly.

The European Alps have been growing since the end of the last little Ice Age in 1850 when glaciers began shrinking as temperatures warmed, but the rate of uplift has accelerated in recent decades because global warming has sped up the rate of glacier melt, the researchers 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
"bankrupting" of the coal and oil industries. By all means, reduce American productivity to that of Madagascar to keep the Alps down to size!

Posted by: johngalt at October 31, 2009 3:46 PM
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 AM

October 24, 2009

Quote of the Day

No, no, no, no ó you have committed apostasy; heresy! You are not allowed to speak of warming except in the most emotional, alarmist tones!

You are not allowed to follow an objective, skeptical line of reasoning in this matter. You are not allowed to consider whether or not it is cost-efficient or even possible to cease all carbon emissions; you simply must do it.

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, 2009


Hey 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.

ďWeak El Ninos are notorious for cold and snowy weather on the Eastern seaboard,Ē Rogers said in a Bloomberg Television interview from Washington. ďAbout 70 percent to 75 percent of the time a weak El Nino will deliver the goods in terms of above-normal heating demand and cold weather. Itís pretty good odds.Ē

Warming in the Pacific often means fewer Atlantic hurricanes and higher temperatures in the U.S. Northeast during January, February and March, according to the National Weather Service. El Nino occurs every two to five years, on average, and lasts about 12 months, according to the service.

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:

Ding Dong The Stick is Dead!

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 ďHockey StickĒ after additional tree ring data, recently released (after a long and protracted fight over data access) is added to the analysis of Hadleyís archived tree ring data in Yamal, Russia.

All of the sudden, it isnít the ďhottest period in 2000 yearsĒ anymore.

Posted by John Kranz at 6:37 PM | Comments (0)

September 25, 2009

The 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 ď+/ĖĒ came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jonesís response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, ďWe 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?Ē

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to ďtry and find something wrong.Ē The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

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 PM

September 17, 2009

Audi Preaches JG's Gospel of Petroleum

You 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.

"One drop of diesel fuel has 12% more power than one drop of gasoline."

I'm ready to do my part to reduce global warming-
"If 1/3 of Americans switched from gasoline to diesel, it would be the equivalent of planting 2.2 billion trees."

"so if you take the combination of phenomenal performance with reduced emissions and the positive impact that has on the environment there can truly be no compelling argument against the adoption of clean diesel technology for use on the roads in the United States."

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 PM

September 15, 2009

Why Linus Drives a Hummer

No global warming, no great pumpkins.

CHICAGO ó 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.
Growers in some states say harvests are down significantly from last year's yield, which could mean shortages or higher prices for pumpkins shipped in from California, Texas and other areas with better crops.

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 canít 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 itís all a lot of tosh, I looked around the table and realised that I had gone too far. ďStill,Ē I said. ďItís clear that we must do something for the polar bears. Absolutely imperative.Ē

Secretly I remain a heretic: but if I hadnít mentioned the bears the Climate Change Inquisition would have been round to the house quicker than you can say ďice cubeĒ and started pulling out my fingernails until I recanted.


Cutting greenhouse emissions is of course a good idea. The sooner everybody agrees that using the sun as a power source is the way forward, rather than burning dirty coal, the better. What I dislike is the unhealthy alliance of non-governmental organisations, the European Union, the United Nations and others all running around telling us what to do. Wasting taxpayer money seems to be their main priority. And I particularly dislike Trudie Styler, the wife of Sting, a pop star, who pitches up here and there telling us not to burn wood, then flies off in her private jet to one of her 20 homes.

Having said that, as somebody who has spent most of his life in the northern hemisphere, Iím all in favour of climate change. Iíll be sorry to see the end of Bangladesh of course, and Iíll probably never get a chance to see the Maldives unless I go deep-sea diving. But think how good Scotland and Sweden will become.

That is the thing about man: endlessly adaptable. It was the Greek philosopher Heraclitus who wrote: ďYou can never step in the same river twice.Ē Change happens and we learn to live with it, even embrace it. Think of all that virgin tundra! Even Canada might become habitable.

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?

Posted by: jk at September 13, 2009 11:05 AM
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 AM

Let's put it to a vote

AC'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.


But Jonathan T. Overpeck, a study author and climate specialist at the University of Arizona, said the rising concentration of long-lived greenhouse gases guaranteed warming at a pace that could stress ecosystems and cause rapid melting of Greenlandís great ice sheet.

ďThe fast rate of recent warming is the scary part,Ē Dr. Overpeck said. ďIt means that major impacts on Arctic ecosystems and global sea level might not be that far off unless we act fast to slow global warming.Ē

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 60įN 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, 2009

Weather is not Climate

Keep 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 Ė the 34th coolest on record, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAAís 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 AM

July 21, 2009

Wait a Cotton-Pickin' Minute

The 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, 2009

The End of Liberty

It'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.

"This is the best sunspot I've seen in two years," observer Michael Buxton of Ocean Beach, Calif., said on

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 PM

July 3, 2009

GHG/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 EPAís 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 testóconformance 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 AM

July 1, 2009

That 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, 2009

Clean 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."

"Do we really need to spend government money to do a study on why people don't want to pay twice the cost and get half the quality?"

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 PM

Science and politics at EPA

JK 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 PM

Emissions scheme passes Australia's House - stalls in Senate

In 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.

Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.

This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.

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 PM

June 26, 2009

"Balanced" and "sensible" climate change bill passes House

That'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:

And here are a few floor quotes:

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.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) called the bill a ďscamĒ that would do nothing but satisfy ďthe twisted desires of radical environmentalists.Ē
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) called it a ďmassive transfer of wealthĒ from the United States to foreign countries.

Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio countered that, without the bill, the United States would remain energy-dependent on people who want to ďfly planes into our buildings.Ē

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:

‚ÄúI look forward to spending the next 100 years trying to fix this legislation,‚ÄĚ said California Republican Brian Bilbray.

Posted by: HB at June 27, 2009 10:15 PM

Cap'n Trade

I 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, 2009

Our Administration Will Be About Science!

-- unless, of course, it interferes with our politics!

Scientific findings at odds with the Obama Administrationís 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 suppression of valid science for political reasons is beyond belief,Ē said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman. ďEPAís conduct is even more outlandish because it flies in the face of the presidentís widely-touted claim that Ďthe days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.íĒ

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."

Posted by: johngalt at June 25, 2009 12:58 PM
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 PM

June 19, 2009

Do 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, 2009

Climate Change

Good 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:


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 PM

May 22, 2009

What 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.

The only way to control for such surface distortions is by measuring atmospheric temperatures. And when Christy and his co-researcher Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist now teaching at UA-Huntsville, began analyzing temperature readings from NOAA and NASA satellites, they found much slighter increases in atmospheric temperatures than what was being recorded on the surface. Christy and Spencer also found that nearly all the increases in average surface temperatures are related to nighttime readings - which makes sense if bricks and pavement are in fact retaining heat that would otherwise be dispersed.

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?

Christy: The problem is that the solutions being offered don't provide any detectable relief from this so-called catastrophe. Congress is now discussing an 80% reduction in U.S. greenhouse emissions by 2050. That's basically the equivalent of building 1,000 new nuclear power plants all operating by 2020. Now I'm all in favor of nuclear energy, but that would affect the global temperature by only seven-hundredths of a degree by 2050 and fifteen hundredths by 2100. We wouldn't even notice it.

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?)


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 ďclimate researchersĒ 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 isnít. Anyone in this research community including John Christy who says anything counter to the ďaccepted factsĒ is all but ignored. John Christy is too high profile to have his funds cut-off; he is the Governmentís 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.

Posted by: T. Greer at May 23, 2009 8:45 PM
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 PM

Orwell 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 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, 2009

For Sale: The Golden State

I 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 PM

May 13, 2009

Now That''s Inconvenient!



Posted by John Kranz at 5:13 PM | Comments (0)

May 11, 2009

Fuel Economy Buffoonery

It 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 PM

April 29, 2009

Climate 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 ó instead of having everyone turn off their lights for one hour ó 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.

If the billion people who participated in this previous Earth Hour participate in our new and improved version, we will eliminate more than 7 trillion pounds of carbon emissions per year. And thatís assuming an even distribution of participants around the world. As participation would likely be higher in the nations that emit the most, the actual number of savings may be two or even three times as much.

And if we could get a billion people to participate each year, the planet would be saved in a very short amount of time indeed.

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 PM

George Carlin Saves the Planet

This 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?"

Posted by: jk at April 29, 2009 1:52 PM
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 PM

April 22, 2009

It's Not Easy Being Green

Heritage updates Kermit's Lyrics:

Itís so expensive being green,
Having to pay for all the things big government needs,
When I think it could be nicer not being taxed,
for energy, or my car, or my homeís heating, things like that.

Itís so expensive being green,
It seems the taxes blend in with so many ordinary policies these days,
And people tend to pass them over, because theyíre not standing out like flashy payroll taxes or spending thatís skyyy high.

But, green is the color of taxes,
and green can seem cool and friendly-like,
And green taxes will be big, like a mountain, or seem important like a river of debt,
or sacrifice jobs for a tree.

When green is all your allowed to be,
It can make you wonder why,
But why wonder, why wonder,
Your green, and business wonít do fine, but you better get used to it.
Itís who you have to be.

Follow the link to a video of the original.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:46 PM | Comments (0)

March 26, 2009

Back to the Caves

A 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 worldís principal source of man-made greenhouse gases has always been prosperity."

The recession makes that relationship easy to see: shuttered factories donít 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 againóthrough 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 lessóan environmental necessityówhile 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, 2009

Cut 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.

If approved by the White House Office of Management and Budget, the endangerment finding could make regulations of greenhouse gases across the economy tougher than those prepared but not approved by the Bush administration. The EPA submitted the proposed rule to the White House on Friday, according to federal records published Monday.

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 PM

March 11, 2009

DAWG 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: Asher's blog at Daily Tech is a fount of new-ledge (give THAT one to your spelling test!).

Posted by: nanobrewer at March 15, 2009 11:09 PM
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 PM

March 9, 2009

Why politicized economic development is dangerous

I 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.

Using the airline industry as an example, the question in the 1800s was: "Is long-distance air travel possible?"

In the 1800s, balloons were already in use but were not practical. The problem to solve was the heavier-than-air machine.

The Wright Brothers in 1903 proved scientific feasibility. They risked their time, money and lives to show that a heavier-than-air machine could fly.

Lindbergh, in 1927, proved engineering feasibility. He risked time, money and his life to show that long-distance air travel was possible.

This gave investors enough confidence to risk their money in the aircraft industry. In 1935 the Douglas Company came out with the DC-3, which was the beginning of economic feasibility.

The modern airline industry resulted from all this risk-taking. Today, a middle-class American can go anywhere in the world much faster, and in much greater comfort, than a Roman emperor could. Travelers fly because the benefits are greater than the costs. This is economic feasibility.

This three-step model explains why governments are terrible at economic development. The "experts" who comprise the government gamble with other people's money, so they tend to confuse scientific and engineering feasibility with economic feasibility.

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. [emphasis mine]

This economic development of the economically unfeasible is precisely the modern story of:

Wind power
Solar photovoltaic power
Ethanol (both glucosic AND celluosic)
Hydrogen fuel cells
Dual-mode hybrid cars
The list goes on...

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 PM

March 7, 2009

Politicization of Science Deux

A 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, 2009

Why Politicized Science is Dangerous

Yesterday 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.

This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high-school classrooms.

I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.

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.

Posted by: T. Greer at March 6, 2009 5:30 PM
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 PM

February 27, 2009

Cap'n Trade

Maybe 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.

You don't even have to burrow into yesterday's budget fine print to discover the "climate revenues" section, where the White House discloses that it expects $78.7 billion in new tax revenue in 2012 from its cap-and-trade program. The pot of cash grows to $237 billion through 2014, and at least $646 billion through 2019. If this isn't tax revenue, what is it? Manna from heaven? The offset from Al Gore's carbon footprint?

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, 2009

VP 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, 2009

Mild January in Philly

Blog 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 PM

January 25, 2009

Saving the World Through World Government

I 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.

"Nobody asked if we wanted to move," said a 38-year-old man whose family lost a small brick house. "The government just posted a notice that said, 'Your home will be demolished.'"

The dam will shortchange German consumers, Chinese villagers and the climate itself, if critics are right. And Xiaoxi is not alone.

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.

Posted by: T. Greer at January 25, 2009 4:49 PM
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 PM

January 15, 2009

Hyde Park Weather Report

I 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.

The previous record was eight consecutive days set from Dec. 13 to 20, 1973.

Snowfall records in Chicago date back to 1884.

A wind chill warning has been issued as temperatures as tsmperartures will not reach single digits until Friday.

The forecast for Thursday is: Sunny and cold, with a high near -3. Wind chill values as low as -33. West northwest wind between 10 and 15 mph.

Thursday Night: Clear, with a low around -16. Wind chill values as low as -34. West wind around 10 mph.

Friday: Mostly sunny and cold, with a high near 6. Wind chill values as low as -32. Southwest wind between 5 and 10 mph.

Friday Night: Snow likely. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 5. South southwest wind between 10 and 15 mph. Chance of precipitation is 60%.

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.

The same congressfolk who are now handing out thousands of tickets to this ecological disaster only last year mandated the phased elimination of the incandescent light bulb ó a mere carbon tiptoe, if you will.

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 AM

January 4, 2009

HuffPo DAWG Denyer

You 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 PM

December 26, 2008

Top Ten Failed Climate Predictions

From the (Australia) Herald Sun:

GLOBAL warming preachers have had a shocking 2008. So many of their predictions this year went splat.

Here's their problem: they've been scaring us for so long that it's now possible to check if things are turning out as hot as they warned.

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 Ď68 riots ó who is now a big Green honcho in European politics. Said Danny the Red to Vaclav Klaus: 'You can believe what you want, I donít 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 Galileoís 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.

Posted by: jk at December 29, 2008 12:05 PM
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 PM

December 9, 2008


Don 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.

Ecoflation could hit consumer goods hard in the next five to 10 years, according to a report by World Resources Institute and A.T. Kearney, a global management consulting firm.

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.

The costs of global warming are showing up now in the form of worse heat waves, droughts, wildfires and possibly more severe tropical storms but they are not yet reflected in consumer prices, said the institute's Andrew Aulisi after the report's Dec. 2 release.

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 PM

November 23, 2008

Congressional Hearings

Frank 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?

If the reason was forcing automakers to deal with higher gasoline prices, perhaps the politicians could explain why they have made fuel more scarce by blocking domestic drilling for oil and preventing new refineries from being built during the past three decades.

If global warming was the reason, perhaps the politicians could explain why some scientists now point to cooling temperatures while carbon dioxide levels continue to rise.

Our politicians like to claim the automakers have been slow to react to changing consumer demand. Perhaps they'd care to explain U.S. Energy Department figures that show flex-fuel vehicles, many made by the Detroit Three, accounted for a mere 6 percent of sales in 2007, while hybrid vehicle sales accounted for 2.6 percent of the market.

Politicians who insist on claiming that foreign manufacturers emphasize "green" technology over muscle might explain why sales last year of Toyota Tacoma and Tundra trucks were 30 percent higher than its hybrid vehicle sales.

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 PM

November 21, 2008

DAWG-Denyin' Links of the Day

I may have a new favorite Senator. The Inhofe EFW Blog reports:

ĎPlanet Has Cooled Since Bush Took Officeí Ė Scientists Continue Dissenting Ė Gore Admits 'I've failed badly' - Global Sea Ice GROWS!
Global Warming Theory has Ďfailed consistently and dramaticallyí

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.

Posted by: jk at November 21, 2008 5:57 PM
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 PM

November 20, 2008

Putting 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 PM

Silver Linings...

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.

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.

Wow, flawless timing on the part of Governator Schwarzenegger and his "international climate change summit" being held this week. There's a deliciously ironic feeling I get from that.

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 AM

November 19, 2008

Not Evil Just Wrong

I 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, 2008

RIP Quote of the Day

Let'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.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. . . .

I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. -- the late Michael Crichton, discounting global warming in a 2003 speech.

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 AM

October 21, 2008

Last Word on Global Warming

There'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:


For years, big business Ė from oil and coal companies to electric utilities to car manufacturers Ė have resisted change to environmental policy and stifled the debate over climate change in America and around the globe. Now, facing rising pressure from governments, green groups and investors alike, big business is reshaping its approach to the environment, fundamentally transforming the politics of the debate. Producer Martin Smith travels the globe to size up the climate problem firsthand and to test what big business is really doing to solve one of the most urgent issues of our time.

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 PM

Meanwhile, 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

Posted by: T. Greer at October 21, 2008 4:57 PM
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: (

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 (, 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.

*If my estimation makes you uneasy, I suggest you see the actual graph produced by Christy and Douglass for their study: (

NOTE: I drew in the regression line on this graph. If you want to see the study itself, here is the link: (

Posted by: T. Greer at October 23, 2008 12:26 AM

October 7, 2008

First 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 PM

August 27, 2008


Brother 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 AM

July 28, 2008

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Global Warming

Professor Reynolds links to a 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 titsógarden birds about the size of sparrowsóis 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 PM

July 22, 2008

Yet 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.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

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.


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.

Posted by: jk at July 22, 2008 3:13 PM
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 PM

July 11, 2008

Cinema 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, 2008

Smokestack Al

Brian Carney takes a well deserved whack at Vice President Gore in today's Political Diary:

Smokestack Al

Environmentalists are constantly telling us that major reductions in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions can be made fairly painlessly, so the case of one former Vice President is instructive.

Al Gore made headlines last year when the Tennessee Center for Policy Research disclosed just how much energy the "Inconvenient Truth" auteur consumes in his giant new palace in the Nashville suburbs. Mr. Gore responded at the time by assuring the public that he was purchasing "offsets" to make up for his energy-guzzling ways.

Well, this week the Tennessee Center's Drew Johnson checked in on Mr. Gore again. And despite an alleged program of greenification Ė including geothermal systems, solar panels and lots and lots of nifty compact fluorescent bulbs Ė Mr. Gore's electricity use from the grid was up 10% in 2007 compared to the year before. At this rate, he'll never hit his Kyoto targets. His Tennessee home currently eats up 17,768 kilowatt-hours of electricity every month Ė about 50% more electricity than the average household consumes in an entire year. That's one inconvenient carbon footprint.

Posted by John Kranz at 12:43 PM | Comments (0)

June 10, 2008

The Science is Settled.


Smith and Engels

Posted by John Kranz at 5:36 PM | Comments (0)

June 5, 2008

Question 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.

It is significantly colder globally, colder even than the significant drop to -0.046įC seen in January 2008.

The global ∆T from April to May 2008 was -.195įC

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 PM

May 27, 2008

Wi-Fi Allergy

Stop 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, 2008

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em

JK 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" 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 PM

April 23, 2008

Bring It On

I 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, 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.

What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.
This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.

It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.

The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.

Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.

That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.

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, 2008

Doubting The W in DAWG

A 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.

But every climatologist must know that Greenland's last decade was no warmer than several decades in the early and mid-20th century. In fact, the period from 1970-1995 was the coldest one since the late 19th century, meaning that Greenland's ice anomalously expanded right about the time climate change scientists decided to look at it.

Warming Island has a very distinctive shape, and it lies off of Carlsbad Fjord, in eastern Greenland. My colleague Chip Knappenberger found an inconvenient book, "Arctic Riviera," published in 1957 (near the end of the previous warm period) by aerial photographer Ernst Hofer. Hofer did reconnaissance for expeditions and was surprised by how pleasant the summers had become. There's a map in his book: It shows Warming Island.

The mechanism for the Greenland disaster is that summer warming creates rivers, called moulins, that descend into the ice cap, lubricating a rapid collapse and raising sea levels by 20 feet in the next 90 years. In Al Gore's book, "An Inconvenient Truth," there's a wonderful picture of a moulin on page 193, with the text stating "These photographs from Greenland illustrate some of the dramatic changes now happening on the ice there."

Really? There's a photograph in the journal "Arctic," published in 1953 by R.H. Katz, captioned "River disappearing in 40-foot deep gorge," on Greenland's Adolf Hoels Glacier. It's all there in the open literature, but apparently that's too inconvenient to bring up. Greenland didn't shed its ice then. There was no acceleration of the rise in sea level.

Posted by John Kranz at 2:56 PM

April 8, 2008

Broken Windiow Fallacy

Fred Krupp, "president of Environmental Defense Fund and co-author of 'Earth: The Sequel Ė 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 Ė 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 PM

April 4, 2008


Gateway 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
Brrrr... South America Has Coldest Winter in a 90 Years
Brrrr... Iraqis See First Snow in 100 Years As Sign of Peace
Brrrr... Worst Snowstorms in a Decade in China Cause Rioting
Brrrr... Jerusalem Grinds to a Halt As Rare Snowstorm Blasts City
Brrrr... Worst Snowstorms in 50 Years Continue to Cripple China
Brrrr... China Suffers Coldest Winter in 100 Years
Brrrr... Pakistan Suffers Lowest Temps in 70 Years-- 260 Dead
Brrrr... Record Cold Hits Central Asia-- 654 Dead in Afghanistan
Brrrr... Severe Weather Kills Dozens in Kashmir
Brrrr... Tajikistan Crisis!! Coldest Winter in 25 Years!
Brrrr... Record Cold Wave Blasts Mumbai, India
Brrrr... Snow and Ice in San Diego?
Brrrr... Wisconsin Snowfall Record Shattered
Brrrr... The Disappearing Arctic Ice Is Back And It's Thick
Brrrr... Turkey's snowiest winter continues.
Brrrr... Record Cold & Snow Blankets Acropolis in Greece (Video)
Brrrr... Longest Ever Cold Spell Kills Cattle & Rice in Vietnam
Brrrr... Most Snow Cover Over North America Since 1966
Brrrr... Australia Suffers Through Coldest Summer in 50 Years
Brrrr... Record Snowfall Slams Ohio River Valley
Brrrr... New Data Gives Global Warming the Cold Shoulder

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.
An elderly Quebec City man pulled a 12-gauge shotgun on a female snowplow operator on Sunday for blowing snow onto his property, after warning her.

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 AM

April 3, 2008

That's One Unscientific American

Don 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 PM

March 30, 2008

Back 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.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

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?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

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.

The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way towards prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their carbon footprint, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with Nineveh and Tyre, clean forgotten in six months.

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, 2008

Headline Of The Day Year

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

The right-wing, corporate shills at NPR wonder why the oceans aren't heating.

Posted by John Kranz at