Archive for the ‘Global Warming’ Category

More Live Egypt Updates

Saturday, January 29th, 2011

Not a lot of news coming out. The longer it takes things to happen, the more likely Mubarak is to hold onto power. Yesterday brought scattered reports that the army may be wavering in support of Mubarak. Today? Not so much. There are sporadic reports of gunfire, and lots of reports that citizens groups are banding together to prevent looting.

The old links down the page stopped updating at the end of the day. The new links are:

  • The BBC.
  • The Atlantic.
  • Egyptian blogger Sandmonkey’s Twitter feed
  • As for what an actual popular Egyptian government might look like, Michael Totten reminds us that the answer might be pretty ugly:

    In Egypt, 82 percent want stoning for those who commit adultery; 77 percent would like to see whippings and hands cut off for robbery; and 84 percent favor the death penalty for any Muslim who changes his religion.

    Asked if they supported “modernizers” or “Islamists” only 27 percent said modernizers while 59 percent said Islamists.

    Elsewhere in the Middle East, there are reports of unrest in Yemen. Conversely, yesterday’s reports that Syria had also taken down nationwide Internet access appear to have been false.

    Linkswarm for Monday, November 29, 2010

    Monday, November 29th, 2010

    Like everyone else, I’m a little slow getting back into the post-Thanksgiving swing of things, so here’s a collection of links:

    Voluntarily Cut Emissions or WE WILL KILL YOU!!!

    Friday, October 1st, 2010

    The Eco-Left indulges their misanthropic fantasies of homicide against those that disagree with them, with comically horrifying results.

    Keep in mind that the kind of people who heartily approve of such things are in the Obama Administration (and staff positions in the Pelosi/Reid congress) right now…

    “Mom, can I be propagandized? Please? PLEASE???”

    Wednesday, July 14th, 2010

    From the Houston Chronicle comes word that some area developers are planning a huge ecology theme park off north I-59 in Montgomery County, just north of Houston. “Like Disney, the unique underpinning will be the story that we’re telling — the whole issue of how to sustain our planet.”

    Yeah, because there’s nothing kids love more than spending their vacation getting the same propaganda lectures they get in school.

    The article says the park, still in the planning stage, is two years behind schedule and having problems getting financing, and I can see why: the entire project has “money-losing rathole” written all over it. Still, if they could get it done entirely on private funding, more power to them. Nothing wrong with liberals suffering staggering financial losses from their own pockets while propping up the local economy.

    However, it’s obvious they can’t, since they were able to wrangle special taxing powers from the state government. I’m sure the residents of Conroe and The Woodlands are thrilled at the prospects of their tax dollars being used to propagandize them.

    The strange thing is, that it probably wouldn’t even be the weirdest (or least successful) theme park in the Greater Houston area, since that would be the the park featuring 1/20th scale replica of China’s Forbidden Kingdom.

    Carbon Offsets Offsets

    Saturday, April 24th, 2010

    Heh.

    Climategate Redux: A Look at the State of Play

    Monday, April 19th, 2010

    Between finishing my taxes and the House District 52 race, I’ve had precious little time to post updates on other issues, but despite my personal lacunae interesting developments in Climategate have been bubbling right along.

    This piece in the Telegraph does a good job of covering some of the further revelations. One of the more interesting points:

    “The first report centred directly on the IPCC itself. When several of the more alarmist claims in its most recent 2007 report were revealed to be wrong and without any scientific foundation, the official response, not least from the IPCC’s chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was to claim that everything in its report was ‘peer-reviewed’, having been confirmed by independent experts.

    “But a new study put this claim to the test. A team of 40 researchers from 12 countries, led by a Canadian analyst Donna Laframboise, checked out every one of the 18,531 scientific sources cited in the mammoth 2007 report. Astonishingly, they found that nearly a third of them – 5,587 – were not peer-reviewed at all, but came from newspaper articles, student theses, even propaganda leaflets and press releases put out by green activists and lobby groups.”

    And who would you get to provide an objective, disinterested analysis of IPCC claims? Why, obviously “chair of Falck Renewables, a firm that has wind farms across Europe, and chair of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, ‘a lobby group which argues that carbon capture could become a $1 trillion industry by 2050.'” Who else? That’s like asking G. Gordon Liddy to perform a dispassionate, objective analysis of Watergate.

    You would think that Climategate, the failure of the last “cap and trade” bill, the deep unpopularity of ObamaCare, and the continued poor jobs situation would conspire to prevent Democrats from pushing a huge, job-killing, tax-and-spend global warming bill. You would be wrong. Under the bipartisan fig-leaf of the ever more RINO-ish Lindsey Graham, Harry Reid and company are getting ready to unveil Cap-and-Trade Junior. And they plan to do it in secret, without all those messy public committee meetings. There doesn’t seem to be any limit to how low congressional Democrats are willing to drive their poll numbers in order to get the government’s fingers into as many economic pies as possible before the reckoning comes in November.

    The battle over cap-and-trade, and Climategate, is far from over. If you know anyone in South Carolina, they should be ringing Graham’s phone off the hook to oppose this. Speaking of which, here’s the contact information for Graham’s offices off his official website:

    Washington Office
    290 Russell Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510
    Main: (202) 224-5972

    Upstate Regional Office
    130 South Main St.
    7th Floor
    Greenville, SC 29601
    Main: (864) 250-1417

    Midlands Regional Office
    508 Hampton Street
    Suite 202
    Columbia, SC 29201
    Main: (803) 933-0112

    Pee Dee Regional Office
    McMillan Federal Building
    401 West Evans Street, Suite 226B
    Florence, SC 29501
    Main: (843) 669-1505

    Lowcountry Regional Office
    530 Johnnie Dodds Boulevard, Suite 202
    Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
    Main: (843) 849-3887

    Piedmont Regional Office
    140 East Main Street, Suite 110
    Rock Hill, SC 29730
    Main: (803) 366-2828

    Golden Corner Regional Office
    124 Exchange Street
    Pendleton, SC 29678
    Main: (864) 646-4090

    Here’s the email form: http://lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.EmailSenatorGraham.

    Oh no! Not an ad in The New York Times! We’re DOOOOMED!

    Saturday, March 6th, 2010

    Via Instapundit comes word that proponents of anthropogenic global warming are getting tired of all that annoying skepticism over tiny little things like “missing data,” “corrupted peer review processes” and “stuff just made up out of thin air.” And they’re not going to stand for it any more! They’re going to hit back at those skeptics hard, real hard! They’re going to (brace yourself for this) take out an ad in The New York Times!

    Oh no, not The New York Times! Not that! Just imagine the impact that will have on the 3% of the NYT readership that doesn’t already believe in global warming! It’s like trying to influence the NRA by threatening to take out an ad against them in the local vegetarian newsletter.

    But on reflection, a global warming ad isn’t designed to change minds the minds of skeptics any more than a papal encyclical on original sin is designed to sway the mind of Christopher Hitchins. It’s designed to reassure the global warming faithful that the high priests of AGW will fight to maintain the faith, and that unbelievers and heretics will be punished. For that, The New York Times is the perfect vehicle.

    They’re not trying to convince the other side. They’re preaching to the chorus.

    Frozen Wasteland

    Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

    The banjo player is actually pretty good…

    (Hat Tip: Todd H.)

    Former National Hurricane Center Director Neil Frank on Climategate

    Monday, January 4th, 2010

    Interesting piece on Climategate by former National Hurricane Center Director (and former KHOU meteorologist) Neil Frank.

    Some have asked why people like myself pay attention to critics of Anthropogenic Global Warming, rather than the “(insert random percentage between 75 and 99 here) of scientists that agree with it.” To which it is important to provide a few points of perspective:

    • We don’t know what percentage of the relevant scientific community actually supports the AGW consensus, and to what degree, because the pro-AGW crowd is the only one that’s been doing the counting.
    • Some scientists previously counted on as holding the AGW consensus have changed their mind, complaining that the process has become politicized and that their research has been distorted.
    • The number of scientists dissenting against the AGW consensus continues to grow. Here, for example, are some 700 scientists that disagree with the AGW consensus.
    • Many scientists have been questioning the AGW consensus almost from the beginning.
    • It’s a lot easier to forge consensus when questioning AGW, or producing results that refute it, can kill your career.
    • Ever since ClimateGate information started leaking out, it’s become more apparent that a significant percentage of that consensus was maintained via data manipulation, suppression of dissent, and outright fraud.
    • Even if a majority of climate scientists support AGW, that would not ipso facto prove the AGW case; science relies on empirical data, not popular votes.
    • That also raises the question: Who do you call a “climate scientist”? Meteorologist? Oceanographers? How about experts in Botany to talk about tree rings, one of the central issues of the Climategate scandal?
    • Finally, climate studies are in their relative infancy. To make far-reaching changes to economies and society, in essence giving up on economic growth in order to hand over vast tax and regulation powers to unelected bureaucratic elites, based on computer climate models that, in some cases, date back to 1981 (or earlier) is sheer folly.

    In light of that, Frank’s commentary points out that there are many more AGW-skeptics than the media wants to report on:

    But who are the skeptics? A few examples reveal that they are numerous and well-qualified. Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people’s endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel’s report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide.

    In short: many critics of Anthropogenic Global Warming aren’t just a few Internet cranks, they’re thousands of well-trained scientists with expertise in areas related to climate change, and whose only point of agreement is that there are too many questions about it to throw trillions of dollars at the problem without determining whether it’s real or not. Calling them all “deniers” is pure argumentum ad hominem.

    The Nation’s Alexander Cockburn calls Anthropogenic Global Warming “A Farce”

    Friday, December 25th, 2009

    ClimateGate continues to bubble along. It’s no surprise to see those on the right critical of AGW, but when a dyed-in-the-wool far lefty like The Nation‘s Alexander Cockburn calls it a farce, that’s pretty notable. (Evidently Cockburn has been a long-time skeptic of AGW, but I was unaware of it. Readers may apportion blame for this either to my own laziness, or the mainstream media’s insistence on framing AGW skepticism as an exclusive attitude of the right, as they see fit.)

    Some quotes:

    Deceitful manipulation of data, concealment or straightforward destruction of inconvenient evidence, vindictive conspiracies to silence critics, are par for the course in all scientific debate. But in displaying all these characteristics, the CRU e-mails graphically undermine the claim of the Warmers that they command the moral as well as scientific high ground. It has been a standard ploy of the Warmers to revile the skeptics as whores of the energy industry, swaddled in munificent grants and with large personal stakes in discrediting AGW. Actually, the precise opposite is true. Billions in funding and research grants sluice into the big climate-modeling enterprises and a vast archipelago of research departments and “institutes of climate change” across academia. It’s where the money is. Skepticism, particularly for a young climatologist or atmospheric physicist, can be a career breaker.

    And this:

    The battles in Nicaea in 325 were faith based, with no relation to science or reason. So were the premises of the Copenhagen summit, that the planet faces catastrophic warming caused by manmade CO2 buildup, and that human intervention – geoengineering – could avert the coming disaster. Properly speaking, it’s a farce. In terms of distraction from cleaning up the pollutants that are actually killing people, it’s a terrible tragedy.

    The first thing all those on the left and right should agree on is respect for a scientific method unthered to political influence. Sadly, ClimateGate proves that we are very far from that when it comes to climate research.