Time to stop the nuke hysteria. Key quote:
It’s not bad enough that thousands of people may be dead from Japan’s earthquake and devastating tsunami. No, the media is instead obsessing over a nuclear reactor that has killed no one and probably never will.
This ain’t good: A nuclear meltdown appears to have occurred at the quake-damaged Japanese power plant.
Los Angeles community colleges have fired the building program chief who wasted millions on pie-in-the-sky envionmental projects.
It’s not the crime it’s the cover-up: According to Science, Michael Mann of the climategate scandal did not advocate the illegal deletion of emails that had been requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), as reported earlier by the Daily Caller. All he did was forward an email by Phil Jones, also part of the climategate scandal, that requested that emails should be deleted. He is therefore innocent.
This is getting absurd. That a journal like Science would try to justify this idiotic argument puts a serious stain on almost everything they publish. Michael Mann was requested by Phil Jones to contact Eugene Wahl and ask him to delete emails illegally. Mann took the easiest approach, and simply forwarded Jones’s email. Without question he was complicit in this illegal act.
If the scientific community doesn’t wake up soon and honestly deal with this scandal, they are going to destroy a four hundred year track record of honesty. Worse, they are going to find it increasingly difficult to get funds from anyone for their research.
NASA scientists have published a paper warning that there is growing evidence that the melting at the polar caps is accelerating. From the press release:
The pace at which the polar ice sheets are losing mass was found to be accelerating rapidly. Each year over the course of the study, the two ice sheets lost a combined average of 36.3 gigatonnes more than they did the year before. In comparison, the 2006 study of mountain glaciers and ice caps estimated their loss at 402 gigatonnes a year on average, with a year-over-year acceleration rate three times smaller than that of the ice sheets.
Several things to note after reading the actual paper:
There was a hearing in Congress today on climate science, though it apparently changed nothing: the Republican leadership in the committee is going to proceed with legislation to try to roll back the EPA regulations relating to carbon dioxide imposed by the Obama administration.
The most interesting detail I gleaned from the above article however was this quote, written by the Science journalist himself, Eli Kintisch:
The hearing barely touched on the underlying issue, namely, is it appropriate for Congress to involve itself so deeply into the working of a regulatory agency? Are there precedents? And what are the legal and governance implications of curtailing an agency’s authority in this way?
What a strange thing to write. If I remember correctly, we are a democracy, and the people we elect to Congress are given the ultimate responsibility and authority to legislate. There are no “legal or governance implications.” If they want to rein in a regulatory agency, that is their absolute Constitutional right. That Kintisch and his editors at Science don’t seem to understand this basic fact about American governance is most astonishing.
More evidence that Penn State’s investigation of IPCC climate researcher Michael Mann was a whitewash.
The key point is that the Penn State investigators never interviewed a principal who was able to confirm or deny a key charge against “Hockey Stick” lead author of “Hide the Decline” infamy Michael Mann. This individual has now been interviewed, and what he told federal investigators has indicted Mann and Penn State.
I have noted this already, the very week the Penn State report was issued, but it is nice to see there is further evidence to confirm my conclusions.
How the head of Los Angeles’s community college construction program wasted millions on green energy construction. This quote sums up the absurdity of this environmental wet dream:
As head of a $5.7-billion, taxpayer-funded program to rebuild the college campuses, Eisenberg commanded attention. But his plan for energy independence was seriously flawed. He overestimated how much power the colleges could generate. He underestimated the cost. And he poured millions of dollars into designs for projects that proved so impractical or unpopular they were never built. These and other blunders cost nearly $10 million that could have paid for new classrooms, laboratories and other college facilities, a Times investigation found.
The problems with Eisenberg’s energy vision were fundamental. For starters, there simply wasn’t room on the campuses for all the generating equipment required to become self-sufficient. Some of the colleges wouldn’t come close to that goal even if solar panels, wind turbines and other devices were wedged into every available space.
Going off the grid did not make economic sense either. Given the cost of alternative energy technology, it would be more expensive for the district to generate all its own electricity than to continue paying utilities for power.
Weather and geology also refused to cooperate. Three solar power arrays had to be scrapped because the intended locations were atop seismic faults. Plans for large-scale wind power collided with the reality that prevailing winds at nearly all the campuses are too weak to generate much electricity. To date, a single wind turbine has been installed, as a demonstration project. It spins too slowly in average winds to power a 60-watt light bulb. [emphasis mine]
Worse, the man who forced this idiocy on the colleges still sees nothing wrong with it. And his justification illustrates how completely uneducated he is.
He cast himself as an environmental visionary and predicted that the college system would eventually achieve energy independence. “Somebody needs to be first,” he said. “If the great explorers really had a map and knew where they were going, maybe we wouldn’t have the result we have today.
The fact is that the great explorers always had a map, and worked carefully from real data. Granted, the horizon was unknown, but the explorers who succeeded all ground their exploration on reality, not fantasy.
With foolish leadership like this, it is no surprise California is about to go bankrupt.
The inspector general of the Department of Commerce has just issued a review of NOAA’s response to the climategate emails and has essentially given the agency a clean bill of health. You can download the full report here [pdf].
It’s. just. another. whitewash. Let me quote just one part of the report’s summary, referring to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to NOAA in June 2007 in which the agency responded by saying they had no such documents:
» Read more
O joy. The EPA today issued revised, scaled back regulations for commercial-grade boilers and incinerators.
Is there a crack in the monolith? A play about the persecution of a scientist who expresses skepticism about global warming is running in London, with favorable reviews!
The high priests of science and how they bar the door to skeptics. A paper is published in Nature claiming that Antarctica is warming as predicted by global warming advocates.
The indefatigable Steve McIntyre started to scrutinize [this paper] along with Nicholas Lewis. They found several flaws: Steig et al had used too few data sequences to speak for an entire continent, and had processed the data in a very questionable way. But when they wanted to correct him, in another journal, they quickly ran into an inconvenient truth about global warming: the high priests do not like refutation. To have their critique (initial submission here [pdf], final version here [pdf]) of Steig’s work published, they needed to assuage the many demands of an anonymous ‘Reviewer A’ – whom they later found out to be Steig himself. [emphasis mine]
It is unconscionable for any science journal to have allowed Steig, the author of the paper under attack, to act one of the anonymous reviewers. But hey, what do I know? I’m only a simple science writer.
Listen to the squealing: Scientists criticize the House vote to cut off funds to the IPCC. Key quote:
Without the federal support, [Stanford ecologist Chris Field] said, “We’d have no ability to organize meetings, we’d have no ability to coordinate chapters.”
In other words, no more jaunts to Cancun in the midst of winter. What a shame!
Considering the insincere effort of the IPCC and its scientists to correct its numerous errors, as well as their admitted political agenda, it seems completely appropriate to stop funding it with U.S. tax dollars. If these environmentalists want to issue a report, they should pay for it themselves.
In today’s listing of new science papers published by the American Geophysical Union, two papers illustrate quite clearly why the certainty of knowledge expressed by Presidential Science Advisor John Holdren in his testimony before Congress on Thursday is both mistaken and dangerous.
» Read more
The following story is why the advocates of global warming are losing the debate: At House hearings yesterday, Obama’s science advisor John Holdren admitted that using the term “deniers” to describe scientists who had doubts about global warming is inappropriate. “It was not my intent to compare them to Holocaust deniers, and I regret it,” he replied. “In the future I will find other terms to use.”
Sounds good, doesn’t it? Shortly thereafter, however, during the same hearing, Holdren then said this about a list of 100 climate scientists [word file] who remain skeptical about global warming:
“I haven’t seen the list,” Holdren began. “But in the past, most of the names on such petitions have turned out not to be climate scientists, and one could assume that they had not spent much time reviewing the literature.”
Without any knowledge, he slams these scientists, accusing them of being ignorant of the science.
» Read more
The great wind scam. Key quote:
“With demand for power at record levels because of the freezing weather, there have been days when the contribution of our forests of wind turbines has been precisely nothing,” wrote Richard Littlejohn in the Daily Mail Dec. 27. “It gets better,” Mr. Littlejohn continued. “As the temperature has plummeted, the turbines have had to be heated to prevent them from seizing up. Consequently, they have been consuming more electricity than they generate.”
The law of unintended consequences: Low-income groups are challenging California’s cap-and-trade climate law.
Just what the new space industry needs, more regulations! The EPA has decided it has the right to regulate perchlorate, a chemical used for rocket fuel as well as fireworks and other explosives.
Reality meets feel-good politics: Electric cars and their cold-weather shortcomings. Key quote:
“If you live in an area where the winters get extremely cold an all-electric vehicle will have to be garaged and equipped with some kind of plug-in battery warmer for it to be effective in the coldest months of the year. Keep these thoughts in mind if you’re planning an electric car purchase; we don’t want you finding out the range of your car has been halved when it’s five below zero and you’re fifteen miles from home.”
Iowahawk: Ship of Fools. Key quote:
As you may have read recently, a panel of 100 scientists is now warning that the state of California faces the risk of severe “superstorms” that could inflict more that $400 billion in economic damages to our state economy. According to these predictions, such storms could bring more than 120 inches of rain to the Central Valley, and last as long as 40 days. And, possibly, nights.
In anticipation of such a catastrophic event, I will soon begin seeking $75 billion in emergency supplementary appropriations from the California Assembly and federal sources for the construction of the California SuperArk, a state-of-the-art mass transportation vehicle which will help insure the sustainability of our state and its endangered species.
Read the whole thing.
