Friday, July 18, 2008
Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."
In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."
The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"
In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."
According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."
Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."
In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."
The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"
In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."
According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."
Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."
Great article from David Harsanyi of the Denver Post
July 18, 2008
What Dems Can't Say About Drilling
By David Harsanyi
One day Americans are moaning about the harmful impact of cheap oil and the next they're grousing about the harmful impact of expensive oil.
Which one is it?
As a disreputable sort, I freely confess to having a fondness for oil. Actually, I have a mild crush on all carbon-emitting fuels that feed our prosperity. But I'm especially fond of cheap oil. For many years, those who spread apocalyptic global-warming scenarios have warned me that a collective national sacrifice was needed to save the world.
One option, we were told, was to make gas artificially expensive, forcing our ignorant, energy-gobbling neighbors to alter their destructive habits.
Well, here we are. At $4 a gallon for gas, we already have a flailing economy. Isn't it glorious? And isn't it exactly what many environmentalists desired?
The problem is that there is no feasible "alternative" fuel that can haul food from farms to cities, produce affordable electricity for your plasma TV and drive your kids to school. Not yet. It can happen, of course, but only (to pinch a word from enlightened grocery shoppers) organically.
The problem is that when "green" fantasies crash onto the shores of economic reality (as they did with corn-based ethanol), we all suffer.
Don't worry, though, congressional Democrats have a bold plan. Hold on for 10 or 15 years and they'll have a bounty of energy options. They promise. But no oil shale. No clean coal. No nuclear power. And definitely no more oil.
They will not enable your revolting, inefficient lifestyle. In the short-term, offshore drilling, especially, is a pie-in-the-sky fairy tale. Unlike, say, pond scum and hydrogen fuel packs.
On the bright side, it seems that reality is beginning to overtake fantasy. This week, Newt Gingrich's American Solutions for Winning the Future group delivered 1.3 million signatures to Congress, demanding that Washington allow more drilling. A recent Zogby International polls shows 74 percent of likely voters support offshore drilling in U.S. coastal waters, and 59 percent favor drilling for oil in the tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
There are few issues in America that offer this kind of impressive "unity." But apparently when unity doesn't align with left-wing orthodoxy, we need more "leadership" to explain why we're wrong.
Presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama called offshore drilling a "gimmick." According to other Democrats, prices would not be affected for five years and oil companies probably would not use the leases anyway.
If oil giants won't dig, it surely can't hurt to allow leasing. Who knows? They may.
As for waiting? Well, rest assured an increase in domestic oil supply will involve a lot less waiting than the emergence of switchgrass as a viable alternative.
More importantly, oil is a traded commodity and, as everyone knows, the price can fluctuate for a number of reasons beyond supply.
Take President Bush's ceremonial lifting of the moratorium on offshore drilling this week. By happenstance, I guess, within the next three days the price of oil per barrel had fallen more than $15 — the largest such drop in five years.
So why can't Americans look forward to more domestic oil? Well, because carbon is bad for you. Because countless Democrats believe that high prices will help wean us off this terrible addiction.
For many, environmental concerns outweigh the economic well-being of citizens. For some, the migratory paths of caribou trump your selfish habit of heating and cooling your home.
No, drilling isn't "the answer." Yet, the potential positives from increasing domestic supply outweigh any concerns of the opposition. Certainly any they can talk about in public.
Reach columnist David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
What Dems Can't Say About Drilling
By David Harsanyi
One day Americans are moaning about the harmful impact of cheap oil and the next they're grousing about the harmful impact of expensive oil.
Which one is it?
As a disreputable sort, I freely confess to having a fondness for oil. Actually, I have a mild crush on all carbon-emitting fuels that feed our prosperity. But I'm especially fond of cheap oil. For many years, those who spread apocalyptic global-warming scenarios have warned me that a collective national sacrifice was needed to save the world.
One option, we were told, was to make gas artificially expensive, forcing our ignorant, energy-gobbling neighbors to alter their destructive habits.
Well, here we are. At $4 a gallon for gas, we already have a flailing economy. Isn't it glorious? And isn't it exactly what many environmentalists desired?
The problem is that there is no feasible "alternative" fuel that can haul food from farms to cities, produce affordable electricity for your plasma TV and drive your kids to school. Not yet. It can happen, of course, but only (to pinch a word from enlightened grocery shoppers) organically.
The problem is that when "green" fantasies crash onto the shores of economic reality (as they did with corn-based ethanol), we all suffer.
Don't worry, though, congressional Democrats have a bold plan. Hold on for 10 or 15 years and they'll have a bounty of energy options. They promise. But no oil shale. No clean coal. No nuclear power. And definitely no more oil.
They will not enable your revolting, inefficient lifestyle. In the short-term, offshore drilling, especially, is a pie-in-the-sky fairy tale. Unlike, say, pond scum and hydrogen fuel packs.
On the bright side, it seems that reality is beginning to overtake fantasy. This week, Newt Gingrich's American Solutions for Winning the Future group delivered 1.3 million signatures to Congress, demanding that Washington allow more drilling. A recent Zogby International polls shows 74 percent of likely voters support offshore drilling in U.S. coastal waters, and 59 percent favor drilling for oil in the tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
There are few issues in America that offer this kind of impressive "unity." But apparently when unity doesn't align with left-wing orthodoxy, we need more "leadership" to explain why we're wrong.
Presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama called offshore drilling a "gimmick." According to other Democrats, prices would not be affected for five years and oil companies probably would not use the leases anyway.
If oil giants won't dig, it surely can't hurt to allow leasing. Who knows? They may.
As for waiting? Well, rest assured an increase in domestic oil supply will involve a lot less waiting than the emergence of switchgrass as a viable alternative.
More importantly, oil is a traded commodity and, as everyone knows, the price can fluctuate for a number of reasons beyond supply.
Take President Bush's ceremonial lifting of the moratorium on offshore drilling this week. By happenstance, I guess, within the next three days the price of oil per barrel had fallen more than $15 — the largest such drop in five years.
So why can't Americans look forward to more domestic oil? Well, because carbon is bad for you. Because countless Democrats believe that high prices will help wean us off this terrible addiction.
For many, environmental concerns outweigh the economic well-being of citizens. For some, the migratory paths of caribou trump your selfish habit of heating and cooling your home.
No, drilling isn't "the answer." Yet, the potential positives from increasing domestic supply outweigh any concerns of the opposition. Certainly any they can talk about in public.
Reach columnist David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
How the media is covering the Presidential race
Here is an article from the Media research center on the coverage of McCain and Obama and the bias that they have. They are not even trying to hide it anymore.
ALEXANDRIA, VA – In yet another example of slavish adoration, all three network evening news anchors, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, will accompany Illinois Senator Barack Obama on his trip to Europe and the Middle East in August, and deliver their daily broadcasts live from each of the locales along the way.
How outrageous is this? Arizona Senator John McCain has made three trips overseas since March. No anchor has travelled with him on any of them and they provided little if any coverage of any of them.
Sen. McCain went to Europe and the Middle East for a week in March, and the Big Three evening news programs had a total of only four full stories on the trip; one, by NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell, was dedicated to McCain mistakenly saying Iran is aiding al-Qaeda in Iraq. CBS did not even send a correspondent along, and offered only one report consisting of only thirty-one words the entire week Sen. McCain was abroad.
None of the Three networks covered Sen. McCain’s trip to Canada in June at all.
MRC President L. Brent Bozell:
“The liberal media’s shameless slavishness to Sen. Barack Obama knows no bounds. Just when you think they can’t hit any new highs in journalistic lows, they outdo themselves, going into the outer limits of biased coverage.
“The liberal media obviously cannot help themselves. They are already neck-deep in the tank for Sen. Obama, yet they have made the decision that still there just hasn’t been enough loving coverage of him. So the Big Three networks all determined that the remedy would be to go on the road for live daily on-air massages.
“This trip with Sen. Obama must be like the Grateful Dead, the Rolling Stones and the Beatles all rolled into one for the liberal media. For all three nightly news anchors to get to go on the road with him must be a dream come true.
“Brian, Charlie and Katie could prove that they haven’t totally sold-out to Sen. Obama if on this trip they actually subject the candidate to tough questions about his liberal policies and flip flops. But who are we kidding? It will never happen.
“Thus far, with the liberal media’s ceaseless and glowing coverage of Sen. Obama to the exclusion of virtually all else, no wonder Americans are thinking that we are in the midst of a coronation, not an election.”
ALEXANDRIA, VA – In yet another example of slavish adoration, all three network evening news anchors, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, will accompany Illinois Senator Barack Obama on his trip to Europe and the Middle East in August, and deliver their daily broadcasts live from each of the locales along the way.
How outrageous is this? Arizona Senator John McCain has made three trips overseas since March. No anchor has travelled with him on any of them and they provided little if any coverage of any of them.
Sen. McCain went to Europe and the Middle East for a week in March, and the Big Three evening news programs had a total of only four full stories on the trip; one, by NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell, was dedicated to McCain mistakenly saying Iran is aiding al-Qaeda in Iraq. CBS did not even send a correspondent along, and offered only one report consisting of only thirty-one words the entire week Sen. McCain was abroad.
None of the Three networks covered Sen. McCain’s trip to Canada in June at all.
MRC President L. Brent Bozell:
“The liberal media’s shameless slavishness to Sen. Barack Obama knows no bounds. Just when you think they can’t hit any new highs in journalistic lows, they outdo themselves, going into the outer limits of biased coverage.
“The liberal media obviously cannot help themselves. They are already neck-deep in the tank for Sen. Obama, yet they have made the decision that still there just hasn’t been enough loving coverage of him. So the Big Three networks all determined that the remedy would be to go on the road for live daily on-air massages.
“This trip with Sen. Obama must be like the Grateful Dead, the Rolling Stones and the Beatles all rolled into one for the liberal media. For all three nightly news anchors to get to go on the road with him must be a dream come true.
“Brian, Charlie and Katie could prove that they haven’t totally sold-out to Sen. Obama if on this trip they actually subject the candidate to tough questions about his liberal policies and flip flops. But who are we kidding? It will never happen.
“Thus far, with the liberal media’s ceaseless and glowing coverage of Sen. Obama to the exclusion of virtually all else, no wonder Americans are thinking that we are in the midst of a coronation, not an election.”
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Part of an Op ed piece that Obama had published in the local Chicago newspaper 8 days after 9/11/01
We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.”
Even the terrorists didn't say this. They said why they did it, to get back at the U.S. and kill the infidels. Not because we didn't understand their culture and poverty.
Even the terrorists didn't say this. They said why they did it, to get back at the U.S. and kill the infidels. Not because we didn't understand their culture and poverty.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Who doesn’t the Prince of Privilege talk down to?
Here is an article from Conservative edge.
Noted far left wing New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd says that calling Barak Obama a “liberal elitist” is a smear. Although she does admit that Obama is aloof, dismissive and has an air of a prince of privilege. Coming from a left wing dilettante like Dowd, that is quite an assessment.
And therein lays the essence of one of Barak Obama’s biggest weaknesses, he carries an air of condescension that is normally not appealing to the American electorate. Just ask John Kerry, Al Gore and Michael Dukakis. Except that Obama is far worse than any of those presidential losers.
Last week, the issue raised its ugly head when Jesse Jackson whispered into a hot mic that he would like to castrate Obama for “talking down” to blacks. Which raises the question: Who doesn’t the Prince of Privilege talk down to?
Americans were first treated to the Obama arrogance en masse, when he told a group of San Francisco liberal elitists that Americans in the heartland cling to God and guns out of desperation. Those remarks put the Reagan Democrats demographics in jeopardy for the Democratic nominee.
Female Clinton supporters also smelled the Obama condescension odor towards women. Just ask Geraldine Ferraro what she thinks of Obama's condescension towards women. Many have referred to Obama as a misogynist. This feeling was reinforced when Obama called a female reporter “sweetie” when she addressed a pointed question to Obama.
Lately, some Clinton supporters have borne the brunt of the Obama arrogance when he told them to “just get over it” referring to the Democratic primary. They believe that Obama is paying lip service to the idea of “unity” in order to get their money.
As well, Obama has taken extraordinarily arrogant steps in his campaign. In addition to creating his own presidential seal, he has proposed making a campaign speech at Germany’s Brandenburg Gate, a spot traditionally reserved for world leaders, and has moved his acceptance speech from a "smallish" in door 19,000 seat convention center to a 75,000 seat outdoor stadium. Obama’s camp told network news execs to get over it, when they balked at the cost of moving their operations to include the new venue.
Even Obama’s wife Michelle exudes arrogance and contempt for the little people. Yesterday she sneered at the government tax rebate checks being sent to Americans as part of a bi-partisan stimulus package, as to small. You could buy a pair of earrings with the $600.00 checks but not much else, she told the assembled crowd.
One has to wonder if we Americans are worthy of Barak Obama. As Michelle told one crowd, this is our only chance to get Barak. He won’t run for President again. I don’t know whether to genuflect or kiss his ring.
Posted By:Brian Goettl @ 7/13/2008 8:24:00 PM
Noted far left wing New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd says that calling Barak Obama a “liberal elitist” is a smear. Although she does admit that Obama is aloof, dismissive and has an air of a prince of privilege. Coming from a left wing dilettante like Dowd, that is quite an assessment.
And therein lays the essence of one of Barak Obama’s biggest weaknesses, he carries an air of condescension that is normally not appealing to the American electorate. Just ask John Kerry, Al Gore and Michael Dukakis. Except that Obama is far worse than any of those presidential losers.
Last week, the issue raised its ugly head when Jesse Jackson whispered into a hot mic that he would like to castrate Obama for “talking down” to blacks. Which raises the question: Who doesn’t the Prince of Privilege talk down to?
Americans were first treated to the Obama arrogance en masse, when he told a group of San Francisco liberal elitists that Americans in the heartland cling to God and guns out of desperation. Those remarks put the Reagan Democrats demographics in jeopardy for the Democratic nominee.
Female Clinton supporters also smelled the Obama condescension odor towards women. Just ask Geraldine Ferraro what she thinks of Obama's condescension towards women. Many have referred to Obama as a misogynist. This feeling was reinforced when Obama called a female reporter “sweetie” when she addressed a pointed question to Obama.
Lately, some Clinton supporters have borne the brunt of the Obama arrogance when he told them to “just get over it” referring to the Democratic primary. They believe that Obama is paying lip service to the idea of “unity” in order to get their money.
As well, Obama has taken extraordinarily arrogant steps in his campaign. In addition to creating his own presidential seal, he has proposed making a campaign speech at Germany’s Brandenburg Gate, a spot traditionally reserved for world leaders, and has moved his acceptance speech from a "smallish" in door 19,000 seat convention center to a 75,000 seat outdoor stadium. Obama’s camp told network news execs to get over it, when they balked at the cost of moving their operations to include the new venue.
Even Obama’s wife Michelle exudes arrogance and contempt for the little people. Yesterday she sneered at the government tax rebate checks being sent to Americans as part of a bi-partisan stimulus package, as to small. You could buy a pair of earrings with the $600.00 checks but not much else, she told the assembled crowd.
One has to wonder if we Americans are worthy of Barak Obama. As Michelle told one crowd, this is our only chance to get Barak. He won’t run for President again. I don’t know whether to genuflect or kiss his ring.
Posted By:Brian Goettl @ 7/13/2008 8:24:00 PM
Bush press conference
A reporter asked the President today "Why have you not, sir, called on Americans to drive less and turn down the thermostat?"
His answer.
They're smart enough to figure out whether they're going to drive less or not. The consumer is plenty bright, Mark. The marketplace works. People can figure out whether they need to drive more or less. They can balance their own checkbooks. I think people ought to conserve and be wise about how they use gasoline and energy, absolutely. But my point to you, Mark, is that, you know, it's a little presumptuous on my part to dictate to consumers how they live their lives. The American people are plenty capable and plenty smart people and they'll make adjustments to their own pocketbooks. That's why I was so much in favor of letting them keep more of their own money, you know? It's a philosophical difference: Should the government spend their money or should they spend their own money? And I've got faith in the American people.
That answer, by the way, a classic difference, ladies and gentlemen, in how liberals and conservatives look at people: central planning versus individuals making choices in free markets.
This answer is the perfect example of the difference between liberals and conservatives. The liberals think that they have to tell everyone how to live and what to do. Conservatives believe that individuals should be able to make their own decisions and the market will dictate how things work.
The next question was "Mr. President, do you think the oil companies are investing capital to find more reserves with the price at $140 a barrel?"
The answer.
Absolutely. Take an offshore exploration company. First of all costs a lot of money to buy the lease. They tie up capital. Secondly, it takes a lot of money to, you know, do the geophysics to determine what the structure may or may not look like. That ties up capital. Then they put the rig out there. Now, first of all, in a federal offshore lease if you're not exploring during a set period of time you lose your bonus. You lose the amount of money that you paid to get the lease in the first place. And once you explore, do your first exploratory, if you happen to find oil or gas you'll find yourself in a position where a lot of capital is tied up, and it becomes -- and your interests, your economic interests will continue to explore so as to reduce the capital costs of the project on a per barrel basis. So I think they're exploring.
His answer.
They're smart enough to figure out whether they're going to drive less or not. The consumer is plenty bright, Mark. The marketplace works. People can figure out whether they need to drive more or less. They can balance their own checkbooks. I think people ought to conserve and be wise about how they use gasoline and energy, absolutely. But my point to you, Mark, is that, you know, it's a little presumptuous on my part to dictate to consumers how they live their lives. The American people are plenty capable and plenty smart people and they'll make adjustments to their own pocketbooks. That's why I was so much in favor of letting them keep more of their own money, you know? It's a philosophical difference: Should the government spend their money or should they spend their own money? And I've got faith in the American people.
That answer, by the way, a classic difference, ladies and gentlemen, in how liberals and conservatives look at people: central planning versus individuals making choices in free markets.
This answer is the perfect example of the difference between liberals and conservatives. The liberals think that they have to tell everyone how to live and what to do. Conservatives believe that individuals should be able to make their own decisions and the market will dictate how things work.
The next question was "Mr. President, do you think the oil companies are investing capital to find more reserves with the price at $140 a barrel?"
The answer.
Absolutely. Take an offshore exploration company. First of all costs a lot of money to buy the lease. They tie up capital. Secondly, it takes a lot of money to, you know, do the geophysics to determine what the structure may or may not look like. That ties up capital. Then they put the rig out there. Now, first of all, in a federal offshore lease if you're not exploring during a set period of time you lose your bonus. You lose the amount of money that you paid to get the lease in the first place. And once you explore, do your first exploratory, if you happen to find oil or gas you'll find yourself in a position where a lot of capital is tied up, and it becomes -- and your interests, your economic interests will continue to explore so as to reduce the capital costs of the project on a per barrel basis. So I think they're exploring.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)