The more we learn about the working of the IPCC, the more clear it is that it was not doubt that was being “manufactured,” but the consensus itself:
Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – (For more on UN scientists turning on the UN years ago, see Climate Depot’s full report here. )
Christy has since proposed major reforms and changes to the way the UN IPCC report is produced. Christy has rejected the UN approach that produces “a document designed for uniformity and consensus.” Christy presented his views at a UN meeting in 2009. The IPCC needs “an alternative view section written by well-credentialed climate scientists is needed,” Christy said. “If not, why not? What is there to fear? In a scientific area as uncertain as climate, the opinions of all are required,” he added.
‘The reception to my comments was especially cold.’
As is usually the case, the comments at this Andy Pasztor article on the upcoming changes to the human spaceflight program, are ignorant and often nonsensical (the usual spinoff arguments are employed — one comments corrects another that NASA didn’t invent the microwave oven, only to then claim that it invented Teflon). As is often the case, it’s a stupidly partisan debate, with Obama haters (ironically) defending a bloated government agency. Jim Muncy and Bob Werb try (probably unsuccessfuly) to inject a little sanity.
And I have to say that I really don’t understand all these comments about “outsourcing” to US private industry. The irony of course is that the current plan is to “outsource” all of US human spaceflight after Shuttle to the Russians, indefinitely, and largely because the past five years and many billions were wasted on Ares/Orion instead of providing more incentive to private industry.
“Ray” over at Vision Restoration has a development approach to expanding human spaceflight beyond LEO that would actually work, and work within NASA’s constrained budget. Paul Spudis likes it, and has further comments.
Of course, it makes far too much sense to be adopted in Washington. But this is the approach that will be taken privately, regardless of what NASA does.
I don’t normally pass along emailed jokes, but I thought this one too good to pass up:
A man owned a small ranch in Montana. The Montana Work Force Department claimed he was not paying proper wages to his help and sent an agent out to interview him.
“I need a list of your employees and how much you pay them,” demanded the agent.
“Well,” replied he said, “there’s my ranch hand who’s been with me for 3 years.. I pay him $200 a week plus free room and board.
“The cook has been here for 18 months, and I pay her $150 per week plus free room and board.
“Then there’s the half-wit. He works about 18 hours every day and does about 90% of all the work around here. He makes about $10 per week, pays his own room and board, and I buy him a bottle of bourbon every Saturday night. He also sleeps with my wife occasionally.”
“That’s the guy I want to talk to … the half-wit,” says the agent.
“That would be me,” replied the rancher.
I think that Tuesday’s results show that the half-wits are coming to their senses.
Is it an economic policy? With this gang, it seems to be. As a commenter notes, this demonizing of one class of people is a classical Alinskyite tactic. Not to mention a fascist one…
The good news was short lived. The amendment failed, only getting fifty-three votes, when it needed sixty. It will keep it festering as a campaign issue, though.
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is suing the EPA over Climaquiddick:
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association has filed a petition to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. to overturn the EPA’s recent greenhouse gas “endangerment” ruling.
The ruling states that gases believed to cause global warming pose a human health risk and is the first step toward their regulation by the EPA under the Clean Air Act. The NCBA and other producer groups fear the ruling could lead to lawsuits and new restrictions on the nation’s livestock industries.
…The cattle group points to Climategate, in which critics allege that e-mails stolen from Great Britain’s University of East Anglia show bias and manipulation of data by scientists on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The fact that the EPA relied on some of the IPCC’s data to make its finding makes the ruling questionable, Thies said.
Discovery should be quite enlightening. I expect this will go all the way to SCOTUS.
I am fortunate for a wonderful graduate education in the PhD program at Stanford, but I learned more about the way the world works in two months of farming (which saved a wretch like me) than in four years of concentrated study.
In short, the world does not work on a nine-month schedule. It does not recognize concepts like tenure. It does not care for words without action. And brilliance is not measured by vocabulary or SAT scores. Wowing a dean, or repartee into a seminar, or clever put-downs of rivals in the faculty lounge don’t translate into running a railroad—or running the country. One Harry Truman, or Dwight Eisenhower is worth three Bill Clintons or Barack Obamas. If that sounds reductionist, simplistic, or anti-intellectual, it is not meant to—but so be it nonetheless.
I’ve never been less impressed with Ivy League degrees than I am now.