How he went from climate promoter to climate skeptic.
It’s amazing how pathetic the warm mongers’ “arguments” are. It’s one of the ways you can tell it’s not science; it’s ideology and religion.
[Update a while later]
Bjorn Lomborg on the trivial effects of current climate proposals. But the economic impacts would be far from trivial.
I wonder if there’s a catch? If not, this would be revolutionary.
It will be extended until 2023.
If we haven’t started flying by then, we might as well give up.
Just had an interesting visit there, where they’re working on a lot of tech that will reduce (to the limited degree it exists) the justification for large-fairing launch payloads, with new orbital-assembly techniques, including 3-D printing. They’re working on (among other things) ways of building large lightweight trusses for orbital structure, that could lead ultimately to assembly hangars. They’re also developing ways to recycle a lot of plastic goods (like bubble wrap and zip locks) into cord to feed 3-D printers at the ISS. Very exciting stuff.
“’I’m an advocate for the health care law,’ said Ms. Jackson, who lives in Harlem. ‘And if I can’t navigate this, who can?’”
“It’s as if the whole ObamaCare thing was just a politicized Potemkin village.”
Yup.
Judith Curry has some questions:
To what extent did internal discussions occur about the more questionable choices made in adjusting the ocean temperature data?
Was any concern raised about the discrepancies of the new ocean temperature data set and NOAA’s other ocean temperature data set (OISST) that shows no warming since 2003?
Were any Obama administration officials communicating with NOAA about these statements prior to issuing press releases?
Was the release of the land and ocean temperature data sets, which were documented in papers previously published, delayed to follow Karl’s June press release?
Earlier this year, Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., initiated an investigation into possible industry funding of scientists (including myself) who had recently provided Congressional testimony for the Republicans.
While potentially undisclosed industrial funding of research is a legitimate concern, climate science research funding from government is many orders of magnitude larger than industrial funding of such work.
Yup. [Note: She probably didn’t write the headline]
[Update a while later]
More over at her site:
I’ve heard enough behind the scenes (including discussions with NOAA employees) that I am siding with Rep. Smith on this one.
The politicization of climate science has gotten extreme. I don’t know where to start in trying to ameliorate this situation, but Congressional oversight and investigation into what is going on in government labs does not seem inappropriate under these circumstances.
It’s a sad state of affairs that climate science has come to this.
It is indeed.
Are we a step closer?
It would sure be nice to get away from hydrazine.
…is dead:
The fact is that Obamacare has fallen apart without Republicans’ dismantling it. Almost all of its basic promises have failed, it is an economic shambles, and it is a political mess: Unsurprisingly, people still don’t like it. Less than a third of Americans support the individual mandate, three-fourths oppose Obamacare’s tax on high-end health-care programs, and more voters oppose the law categorically than support it. A quarter of voters say the law has hurt them personally. The question isn’t why Republicans haven’t gotten around to repealing and replacing it — the answer to that question resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for a while, still — the question is when Democrats will get around to admitting that, purity of their hearts notwithstanding, they and they alone — not one Republican voted for Obamacare — have created a mess that has introduced nothing to American health care except chaos.
"Dead" is such a harsh word, @KevinNR. We prefer the phrase "metabolically challenged." https://t.co/UsB0Zmpvmd
— HealthCaliphate (@HealthDotGov) November 4, 2015
[Update a few minutes later]
Surprise! Rates going up three times as much as reported.
Is it doomed?
Frankly, if so, I won’t shed a tear. I’ve never been a fan of companies that require government subsidies (as opposed to government contracts, as is the case with SpaceX) as critical to their business model. My only concern is any effect a Tesla bankruptcy would have on SpaceX, but there’s not reason in theory that it should, unless Elon has been continuing to fund it with his own money, which seems unlikely.
The UK investment into Reaction Engines is drawing some hilarious stories. First, it should “keep Elon up at night“:
Skylon, thanks to BAE investment and backing, has the chance to become the first true space plane that can take off from an airport, fly into space, and then safely return to the atmosphere and land on the same tarmac where it took off. From there, the path to further space exploration can be achieved. For the time being, SpaceX has not yet been able to produce an effective disposable rocket.
This incident, together with the loss of the Progress rocket last April and Cygnus in 2014, are likely to cause some logistics problems for the ISS. Had SpaceX’s launch been successful, it would have marked a significant milestone for the future of space travel. However, this is not yet the case. Despite SpaceX’s reassurances, there is evidence the company may need to make significant changes or abandon ship.
And yet, interestingly, no such “evidence” is provided. #ProTip: A rocket that has successfully delivered payloads to orbit nineteen consecutive times, and which continues to sign up launch customers, is an “effective” rocket, disposable or otherwise.
This is what happens when airplane designers try to build a launch system (I saw this with North American people during the NASP program as well). They don’t understand how launch systems work, they don’t understand the source of the cost, and they think that the solution is to build an airplane, because everything look like a nail. No one actually familiar with the launch industry would write a silly article like this.
And then there’s this:
The 24-hour slog from Sydney to London might soon(ish) be a thing of the past, thanks to the UK government.
The Brits have just pumped £60 million (USD $92.40 million) into a next-generation engine that — its makers claim — will make low-cost space travel possible for commercial customers.
But you and I might not be stepping abroad this super-plane for a while yet. The new ‘Sabre’ engine — a hybrid rocket and jet propulsion system which theoretically allows travel anywhere on Earth in four hours or less — is still at least a decade away, the Independent reported.
And if and when it happens, tickets will be a million dollars each.