Category Archives: Technology and Society

Climate Change “Consensus”

“When it’s a consensus among the uninformed, it’s not worth much“:

What can we take away from all this? First, lots of people get called “climate experts” and contribute to the appearance of consensus, without necessarily being knowledgeable about core issues. A consensus among the misinformed is not worth much.

Second, it is obvious that the “97 per cent” mantra is untrue. The underlying issues are so complex it is ludicrous to expect unanimity. The near 50/50 split among AMS members on the role of greenhouse gases is a much more accurate picture of the situation. The phony claim of 97 per cent consensus is mere political rhetoric aimed at stifling debate and intimidating people into silence.

Yes. Anyone who cites that number at this point is either a liar or appallingly ignorant.

[Update a while later]

Related, I was going to post about this interview with Jerry Taylor, formerly of Cato, who seems to aspire to be continually out of synch with reality:

I began to change, maybe five or six years ago, for several reasons.

One, the scientific evidence became stronger and stronger over time. A lot of conservatives think of climate change as similar to the population issue. You have to remember, in the ’60s and ’70s people were frantic about population growth. And it just peeled away as an issue, simply because it was wrong — or the projections were. And so I would say the same thing: [climate change] is just one in the endless parade of environmental apocalypse stories.

That’s simply not true. The scientific evidence has not become “stronger and stronger over time.” In fact, particularly with the pause, and the complete failure of the models, the uncertainty is growing.

Judith Curry addresses it:

…it is interesting to see Libertarian arguments about climate change policy they [sic] don’t seem overly caught up in the UNFCCC/IPCC ideology, or its antithesis ideology. The Climate Hawks (e.g. Dave Roberts) love this kind of libertarian ‘conversion’ story. But to my mind, Jerry Taylor’s argument for a carbon tax doesn’t really hold up.

Nope.

Amtrak

It doesn’t need more taxpayer cash, it needs to be sold off, or given away. Actually, it’s not so much what it needs, but what the taxpayer needs. As noted, it’s primarily an income transfer scheme from lower-income taxpayers all over the country to the wealthy in the northeast corridor and union members.

[Update a few minutes later]

“‘Amtrak doesn’t get enough government money,’ is the kind of thing someone says when that person doesn’t understand anything about Amtrak, or government, or money.”

Heh.

The Atlas Empire Strikes Back

With FUD:

Unlike Vulcan, which is still a paper rocket, and Falcon 9, which has yet to fly defense missions, Atlas V has 53 successful missions under its belt. This long history of reliability will be an attractive selling point for the government customer, which is intolerant of launch risk, especially when lofting payloads sometimes costing as much as $1 billion.

Furthermore, Atlas V has earned a reputation of being on time, a key requirement for some missions with very tight launch windows. Some government officials are concerned SpaceX has not consistently performed in optimal launch windows.

“Compared to starting with a clean-sheet launch system, upgraded launch pad and clean sheet engine, we believe that re-engining the Atlas V is the lowest cost, risk and schedule solution to getting the U.S. off of dependence on Russian engines,” King tells Aviation Week in an email. He notes that the company has been under contract to NASA for the past two and a half years developing and demonstrating kerosene-powered booster stages and engines. This work will provide lessons on the Atlas V re-engining project.

Here’s their problem, though:

Aerojet Rocketdyne officials have been openly frustrated by slow progress by the Air Force in crafting a strategy for a propulsion program. A traditional Pentagon contractor with less access to private funding, Aerojet Rocketdyne has been lobbying hard for government money to augment its work on the engine while propulsion for Falcon variants and the Vulcan are privately funded.

This means the Aerojet/Dynetics/Schafer team will likely rely on a more traditional government funding model to bring their design to fruition while ULA and SpaceX tap private cash at a time when defense spending is under pressure.

Led by the old guard of Griffin and King, it’s a thrashing dinosaur.

Here’s more at Reuters.