Schumpeter was wrong.
You Know Who Are The Real “Deniers”?
A New Space Video Series
Ed Wright points out some cut-rate science fiction. I haven’t looked at it, so can’t vouch, but you might want to check it out.
Two Sets Of Ethos
An interesting example of how climate skeptics treat private documents versus the settled-science types:
…no skeptic I know of, including me, has yet “outed” the early drafts and author notes contained in Phil Jones JGR account. It would have been easy to do so, to publish Dr. Jones first submitted draft for the broadest peer review possible on the Internet. But no skeptic (that I know of as of this writing) did.
That’s a distinction of difference compared to the actions of people who created Fakegate via potentially criminal actions.
There’s a world of ethical difference between an Anthony Watts and a Peter Gleick. But we’re the ones they want to shut up, or herd off to the reeducation camps.
Teaching The Controversy
Some useful thoughts on science education and climate from Judith Curry.
Sodium Disposal
And now for something completely different. Dealing with tons of the stuff. They’d never be able to do this today.
Climatologists Don’t Know Clouds
…at all.
As I wrote a couple days ago:
I deny that we understand the complex and chaotic interactions of the atmosphere, oceans and solar and other inputs sufficiently to model them with any confidence into the future, and I deny that it is unreasonable and unscientific to think that those who [believe they] do suffer from hubris.
There may be some time in the future that we understand climate as well as they think they do, but I don’t think it will be soon, and I wouldn’t bet that it will ever happen.
What Newt Has To Do Tonight
In response to John King’s first question, stride off the stage, pull out his living beating heart, and hold it up triumphantly. #DebateAdvice
The Green Movement Jumps The Shark
Between Rajenda Pachauri and Peter Gleick, the international green movement has displayed a penchant for colorful personalities. But the root cause of the green meltdown is not the flawed personalities and eccentric ethical standards some greens display. The problem has been that the greens tried to stick the world with a monstrous and unworkable climate control system through the flawed medium of a global treaty. This project is so expensive, so poorly conceived and, in fact, so naive and unthinking, that greens increasingly felt their only hope to get their agenda adopted involved scare tactics.
Like Dean Acheson addressing the communist menace, they were “clearer than truth.” They stretched evidence, invented catastrophes — vanishing glaciers, disappearing polar bears, waves of force five hurricanes sweeping up the coast, the end of snow — to sell their unsalable dream. Not all greens were this irresponsible, but many prominent spokespersons and journalists working with the movement were; ultimately the mix of an unworkable policy agenda and a climate of hype and hysteria holed the green ship below the waterline.
Of contemporary mass movements, the green movement has been consistently the most alarmist, the least constructive, the most emotional, the least rational, the most intolerant and the most self righteous. What makes it all sad rather than funny is that underneath the hype, the misstatements, the vicious character attacks on anyone who dissented from the orthodoxy of the day, and the dumbest policy ideas since the Kellogg-Briand Pact that aimed to outlaw war, there really are some issues here that require thoughtful study and response.
Unfortunately, we’re not going to get it from people who are reflexively anti-human socialists, such as John Holdren.
Obama’s Corporate Tax Plan
Eight reasons it’s a disaster, and why Geithner should resign over it.