The other economically ignorant Paul (Krugman) loses a bet. It’s useful to note that Paul Ehrlich’s partner in economic ignorance was John Holdren, the current president’s science advisor.
Category Archives: Science And Society
Keystone
Thoughts On The “Flat Earthers”
You know, the ones who work, or have worked for NASA.
[Update a while later]
The right stuff: what some of the astronauts say.
The Science Is Unsettled
A lot of NASA personnel are unhappy with the agency’s perceived politicized stance on AGW (Hansen isn’t mentioned by name, but one can read between the lines). I’m glad to see former Rockwell colleague Anita Gale on the list.
[Early afternoon update]
More from Anthony Watts, with a bonus shot of a headless Hansen being handcuffed.
Should You Be Taking Resveretrol?
Derek Lowe is skeptical. I’ve been taking it, in liquid or pill form, for a year or so.
Water Depths
A great infographic from xkcd.
Coregasms
Everything (OK, well, not everything) you wanted to know about exercise-induced org@sms:
Because I first began org@sming from exercise at a young age, not to sound cocky, but I have perfected it! I know when my body is about to coregasm, I know what exact workout to do to achieve that feeling. I have also perfected my face so that if I do have a coregasm in the gym it doesn’t look like I am. I have never been embarrassed about coregasming at the gym because my coregasms are never unexpected or unplanned.
Now whenever I see a woman exercising, I’m going to wonder: is she or isn’t she?
Climate Triumphalism
Universe Today is taking note of a 1981 paper by corrupt climate fraud Jim Hansen (and others) that it claims demonstrates his prescience on the issue:
Hansen wrote in the original paper:
“The global temperature rose by 0.2ºC between the middle 1960′s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4ºC in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean rend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980′s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climate zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.”
Now here we are in 2012, looking down the barrel of the global warming gun Hansen and team had reported was there 31 years earlier. In fact, we’ve already seen most of the predicted effects take place.
“Drought-prone regions” are receiving less rainfall, the Antarctic ice has begun to crack and crumble and bowhead whales are using the Northwest Passage as a polar short-cut.
This was from back in an era in which it’s possible that Hansen was still doing real science, as opposed to political advocacy, demagoguery and calls for the silencing or reeducation of his critics.
Here’s my question. I haven’t had time to read through the entire thing to see if a) the predictions quoted above are the only ones and b) if there are others, how did they hold up? In other words, did the people who dug up the paper and are now using it to herald their hero’s brilliance and far sightedness cherry pick? Let’s do a little crowd sourcing here.
[Update a few minutes later]
A lot more discussion over at Real Climate.
The Uncanny Valley
Researchers still aren’t sure why it creeps us out.
After Keystone
“We’d rather sell our oil to China.”
What Harper is saying is that Canada could make more money by creating a market for its oil rather than selling all of it solely to the US. In other words, the cost of Canadian oil will go up as the US is forced to compete with China.
…Obama could have approved the pipeline, added 30,000 jobs to the economy, and insured the most secure oil source for our future. Instead, he chose to kill the pipeline and the jobs and, in the process, insured that America will pay more for the oil it does buy. It’s hard to imagine a worse decision, especially since it was all so Obama could deny Republicans a win in the run-up to the next election.
It’s worse, actually, considering the latest news:
Officials in the White House’s Office of Management and Budget told the Treasury Department that the announcement of a conditional commitment to Solyndra was imminent. The department had one day to review the terms of the guarantee to accommodate an Energy Department press release.
“Treasury’s consultative role was not sufficiently defined, the consultation that did occur was rushed and no documentation was retained as to how Treasury’s serious concerns with the loan were addressed,” the audit said.
…The Treasury requested more time for review and later agreed with the Energy Department’s request to expedite the review by March 19, 2009, “so that the press release could be issued on the morning of March 20, 2009,” according to the report.
Got that? A speculative “green” energy project that in retrospect, once the rest of us saw the details, was obviously going to be a business disaster, and ended up costing the taxpayers over half a billion dollars, was approved after a “one-day review.” Yet the president demanded that Keystone, a project with certain and vast energy output, be delayed for many more months so that it could be “adequately reviewed,” despite the fact that it had already had years of review. And as a result our energy prices will now rise in the future, with no way of returning to the status quo. Just as the president told us he wanted them to when he ran four years ago.
The campaign ad this fall almost writes itself. Or themselves.
One wonders what administration defenders are thinking as they watch this ongoing trainwreck. We know what they’re saying, but what are they thinking?