Thoughts from Bob Zimmerman on the tremendous uncertainty.
The models are worse than worthless as a guide to policy.
Thoughts from Bob Zimmerman on the tremendous uncertainty.
The models are worse than worthless as a guide to policy.
Over at Space News, from the usual suspect.
And then there’s this: SLS rocket could help scientists answer big questions.
Big questions like "Why is this monstrosity chewing up so much budget we can't afford to do any actual science?" https://t.co/q4VgWDs9lo
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) November 16, 2015
#ProTip To space-telescope aficionados. SLS is the most expensive possible way to put up a space telescope. https://t.co/q4VgWDs9lo
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) November 16, 2015
I didn’t think of the movie as one, but I did almost laugh out loud at parts of the book.
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.