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.
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.
French mathematicians are not impressed:
There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world’s climate is in any way ‘disturbed’. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet’s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.
Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events – they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past. We ourselves have processed the raw data on hurricanes.
We are being told that ‘a temperature increase of more than 2ºC by comparison with the beginning of the industrial age would have dramatic consequences, and absolutely has to be prevented’. When they hear this, people worry: hasn’t there already been an increase of 1.9ºC? Actually, no: the figures for the period 1995-2015 show an upward trend of about 1ºC every hundred years! Of course, these figures, which contradict public policies, are never brought to public attention.
Of course not.
[Via Steve Milloy]
I have a project in mind for which I have some unique requirements. I’d like a low-res, narrow-field webcam, robust enough for all-weather outdoor use. I can’t find anything that meets the requirement in a search, but wonder if anyone has ideas for how to hack one? For instance, if it’s got like a five megapixel sensor, could I easily just look at the center of it, without having to process the whole image? I’ll probably be hitching it to a Raspberry Pi 2.
[Update a while later]
OK, it looks like a standard webcam hooked up to a Raspberry Pi 2, with this software, should give me sufficient power to do what I want.
Why they must be programmed to kill.
Well, this is a twofer from Borenstein: Junk science and junk economics.
The WaPo finally wakes up to reality.
And yes, it’s not just whole milk, but small steps, I guess.
Apparently, David Appell is as hilariously illogical as ever. And yes, Big Climate does seem to be a tad misogynistic. But hey, they can be forgiven, they’re just tying to save the planet.
[Update a while later]
The problem with Senator Whitehouse’s RICO suit. He has no evidence.
Yes, it seems to be mostly a wild conspiracy theory. And projection.
Related: Katherine Hayhoe has gotten an infinite amount more money from Exxon than I have.
There’s a new, free downloadable anthology out. Looks potentially interesting.
I thought there were some existing parametrics for the savings in mass fraction for a stage or a lander launched dry (versus wet), but apparently not. Is there anyone out there who whomp up a simple system in AutoCAD or Solidworks? Say 50,000 lbs of LOX/Hydrogen, launch acceleration 6 gees?