A Trillion Here, a Trillion There. This nice graphical illustration of the size of the stimulus comes from Suitably Flip.
Adjusted for inflation and in 2008 dollars, the stimulus is roughly 5 times the entire cost of the race to the moon. Or 5 times the cost of the Louisiana Purchase.
Click image for the full story.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Fox News guy Glenn Beck calls it Economic Apocalypse. And he uses a presentation style reminiscent of the Goracle to present it. Hockey stick and all. I call it madness.
Bonus video: Hypocrisy with Penn Jillette.
Monday, January 26, 2009
President Barack Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus plan, has morphed into an appropriations bill devoid of debate. The process forgoes any pretense of targeting unemployed people and resources.
For instance, the bill reads “Provided further, That not less than $140,000,000 shall be available for climate data modeling.” This raises the question of how many unemployed climate modelers are out there pounding the pavement.
When presented with that question, last Friday, Pat Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists stated “I don’t know one unemployed modeler.”
Whether or not another $140,000,000 for climate data modeling is a good idea, it is hard to see an immediate, economy-stimulating impact from this item.
What’s the rush? Maybe they need to get all their modeling done before another cool year highlights how bad the models are.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
in the United Arab Emirates:
RAS AL KHAIMAH // Snow covered the Jebel Jais area for only the second time in recorded history yesterday.More here.
So rare was the event that one lifelong resident said the local dialect had no word for it.
Christopher Moncton's latest report comes to us via the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI).
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE) -- The Earth has shown an under-reported cooling trend for eight straight years, raising serious questions about the accuracy of the UN’s climate projections, since not one of the computer models on which it relies had predicted so long and steep a cooling, says a new review paper -- Temperature Change and CO2 Change – A Scientific Briefing --from the Science and Public Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C. think tank.Emphasis added by moi.
The paper posits that “The chief reason for scepticism at the official position on “global warming” is the overwhelming weight of evidence that the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, prodigiously exaggerates both the supposed causes and the imagined consequences of anthropogenic “global warming”; that too many of the exaggerations can be demonstrated to have been deliberate; and that the IPCC and other official sources have continued to rely even upon those exaggerations that have been definitively demonstrated in the literature to have been deliberate.
“In short,” writes Monckton, “science is being artfully manipulated to the point of what are in essence political and not scientific conclusions – a conclusion that is congenial to powerful factions whose ambition is not to identify scientific truth but rather to advance the special vested interests with which they identify themselves.
The paper demonstrates that if CO2 concentration continues to rise more slowly than the IPCC had predicted, and if climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration is in any event well below the IPCC’s projected range, the likelihood of any “global warming” >2 °C/century to 2100 is vanishingly small.
Monckton also demonstrates that official sources have:
• relied upon questionable and occasionally downright dishonest methods to inflate the observed rate of temperature increase
• created the false impression that the rate of increase is itself rising when an identical argument can be used to demonstrate that it is falling
• diminished earlier and warmer temperatures in this century
• abolished the mediaeval warm period
• diverted attention away from the fact that throughout almost all of the Holocene, and throughout all four previous interglacial periods, surface temperatures were considerably warmer than they are today.
Says SPPI president, Robert Ferguson, “When the climate science is wrong, the policies are wrong, and then both people and the environment are harmed. It is past time that the media and elected officials stop treating “man-made global warming” as a religion and started asking some serious and pointed questions. This paper lays the ground work for that.”
Friday, January 23, 2009
As much as their proponents want us to believe, the fact is that government bailouts are not the fix for our current economic troubles.
In one of the finest inaugural addresses ever, this new President explained it simply and concisely, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem".
Update: related and relevant
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Via the Washington Post:
To what extent should we accept these projections at face value? How certain is the stated range of uncertainty? Can today's climate models provide credible predictions of the regional impacts of climate change (e.g., on the scale of U.S. states or most European countries)?
These questions are addressed in a series of recent articles and exchange of comments in New Scientist.
Unless of course, you are trying to convince the world that Antarctica is warming.
Washington, DC: A new study on Antarctic temperatures – which is contrary to the findings of multiple previous studies - claims "that since 1957, the annual temperature for the entire continent of Antarctica has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit, but still is 50 degrees below zero.”Be sure to read the rest of this post by Marc Morano at Senator Jim Inhofe's EPW Press Blog.
Despite the fact that the study was immediately viewed with major skepticism by scientists who are not skeptical of anthropogenic global warming claims, many in the media pounced on the study as a chance to attack those skeptical of man-made climate doom. According to the release of the study, “The researchers devised a statistical technique that uses data from satellites and from Antarctic weather stations to make a new estimate of temperature trends. […]
The scientists found temperature measurements from weather stations corresponded closely with satellite data for overlapping time periods. That allowed them to use the satellite data as a guide to deduce temperatures in areas of the continent without weather stations.” (emphasis added)
Few media outlets noted that in 2007 Antarctic “sea ice coverage has grown to record levels since satellite monitoring began in the 1979, according to peer-reviewed studies and scientists who study the area.” [See also other factors impacting Antarctica: “Volcano, Not Global Warming Effects, May be Melting an Antarctic Glacier & The Antarctic deep sea gets COLDER – April 21, 2008 & A January 12, 2008, peer-reviewed paper in AGU (American Geophysical Union) found “A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850.” Map of Volcanoes - See comprehensive data round up below]
The new Antarctic study was published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature and the lead author of the study was Eric Steig, a University of Washington professor of Earth and Space Sciences. Other co-authors include: David Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, a former student of Steig's; Scott Rutherford of Roger Williams University in Bristol, RI; and Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University.
UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, who is not in any way a climate change skeptic, said of the study, "I remain somewhat skeptical… It is hard to make data where none exist.” Echoing Trenberth’s analysis were several other scientists.
Here's another review from Roger Pielke Sr.
And at the Heliogenic Climate Change blog they're a little more blunt about this in a couple of related posts: Scientist adjusts data -- presto, Antarctic cooling disappears and Rewriting History.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Bob Carter is an adjunct professor of geology at James Cook University. He writes:
THE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that October in the US was marked by 63 record snowfalls and 115 lowest-ever temperatures.Can you say computer models?
Over the past few years, similar signs of colder than usual weather have been recorded all over the world, causing many people to question the still fashionable, but now long outdated, global warming alarmism. Yet individual weather events or spells, whether warmings or coolings, tell us nothing necessarily about true climate change.
Nonetheless, by coincidence, growing recognition of a threat of climatic cooling is correct, because since the turn of the 21st century all real world, long-term climate indicators have turned downwards. Global atmospheric temperature reached a peak in 1998, has not warmed since 1995 and, has been cooling since 2002. Some people, still under the thrall of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's disproved projections of warming, seem surprised by this cooling trend, even to the point of denying it. But why?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
If it seems unusually cold today in Washington, DC it may just be following a trend, reports Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters:
In fact, it's normally almost 7 1/2 degrees warmer when a Republican is sworn in on a January Inauguration Day than when a Democrat raises his right hand.Imagine what how cold it would have been if Al Gore had won!
So said a 2001 study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
- Average Noon Temperature when a Republican President is sworn in is 40.4 F.
- Average Noon Temperature when a Democratic President is sworn in is 33.0 F.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Fairbanks has invited Al Gore to come up and debate global warming. And the invite comes in the form of a 5-ton ice sculpture of a “shivering” Gore.
The good folks in Fairbanks think that the ice sculpture should last until March. It will be long gone before the Goracle responds to their invitation.
Looks like there's no consensus amongst ordinary folk either. American Voters Losing Faith in Theory of Global Warming:
The poll asked 1,000 likely voters whether global warming was “caused primarily by human activity or by long term planetary trends.” Only 41 percent said it was human activity, while 44 percent said it was long-term planetary trends. Seven percent said it was “some other reason,” and nine percent said they were not sure.Another sign that maybe, just maybe 2008 was the year that man-made global warming was disproved for the majority of us.
This is a significant shift from a poll conducted last April in which 47 percent said human activity caused global warming and only 34 percent said long term planetary trends caused it.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
At her confirmation hearing, Obama nominee for EPA administrator Lisa Jackson was asked by Senator James Inhofe if she would "take science seriously" with regard to global warming.
“If confirmed, I will serve with science as my guide,” said the former commissioner of New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection.That's good news if she's really willing to listen to scientists who have added their names the ever growing list of skeptics.
“Science must be the backbone of the EPA,” Jackson added. “We will make decisions based on the best available science … based on the judgment of the agency’s scientists and independent scientists.”
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) called Jackson’s pledges to make scientific integrity the core value of the EPA “music to my ears,” but admonished her to consider all available scientific opinions on climate change -- especially critics of "global warming."Guess what? She agreed.
The ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee asked Jackson to commit to listen to a speech he made on the Senate floor last week about the science and economics of global warming.
A Senate minority report titled, “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims,” provided the basis for the speech.
The report lists the names of hundreds of internationally recognized scientists who are now skeptical of global warming, many of whom currently or formerly worked for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Senator James Inhofe explains how a carbon tax would punish the poor, how Al Gore is getting rich selling his global warming "whopper", the failed Lieberman-Warner climate change bill and how the IPCC's so-called scientific consensus on global warming is now in full freefall.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.
Credit: Cassini Imaging Team, SSI, JPL, ESA, NASAClick image for larger view. More info here.
Explanation: In the shadow of Saturn, unexpected wonders appear. The robotic Cassini spacecraft now orbiting Saturn recently drifted in giant planet's shadow for about 12 hours and looked back toward the eclipsed Sun. Cassini saw a view unlike any other.
Posted by A Dog Named Kyoto at 8:31 PM
Friday, January 9, 2009
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
I guess it was inevitable. The "For Dummies" series has a new addition.
The 342-page paperback translates scientific and enviro-speak jargon, ranging from terms like "abrupt climate change scenario" through "biomass," "carbon credits," "Kyoto Protocol," and "photovoltaic energy," all the way to "zero-energy homes."The authors of this remarkable scientific work? None other than Canada's Green Party leader Elizabeth May who co-authored the book with Zoe Caron. And what credentials do these two bring to the scientific debate about global warming?
Following the For Dummies series formula, the fact-packed book explains climate science with plenty of drawings, charts, and graphs; and icons in the margins alert readers to information considered to be technical stuff, situation critical, good news, or controversial, as well as information to remember while studying the subject. A "cheat sheet" at the front condenses the contents for quick digestion.
Both authors are globally recognised environmental activists. Ms. May, currently federal Green Party leader, was executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada for 17 years and policy adviser to former prime minister Brian Mulroney. Ms. Caron’s pedigree includes membership in the Canadian Youth Climate Change Coalition and the board of directors of the Sierra Club of Canada.Did I miss the part in there where they mentioned their science credentials?
Not to fear, despite the lack of scientific background by these two "environmental activists", this science book has been thoroughly reviewed for accuracy by, wait for it...
The book was fact-checked by scientists from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a 2,000-member body that has created an objective source of climate information.OK, now we can feel better. There wouldn't possibly be any bias from the IPCC now would there?
Seriously, if you want to read a book about global warming, I can suggest a few that would be far more informative, and truthful.
The world's ice is melting at an alarming rate, right? Well, not exactly...
Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.Attention MSM: no news here. Move along to the next alarmist story.
Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards. Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
A somewhat surprising statement from the European Union Presidency yesterday:
"At the moment, from the perspective of the last days, we understand this step as a defensive, not offensive, action," Czech EU presidency spokesman Jiri Potuznik said.Of course, Israel's actions are defensive. But perhaps this statement is not so surprising considering that the Czech Republic now holds the Presidency of the EU. That would be Vaclav Klaus, who's frank talk and common sense is not limited to topics like global warming.
Update: More level headed comments from German Chancellor Angela Merkel: the responsibility for the conflict lies "clearly and exclusively" with Hamas.
Michael Bloomberg heads to Israel to show his support.
George W Bush: Hamas is entirely responsible for the Israeli invasion of Gaza.
Also of interest Robert Fulford: Israel vs. Hamas; civilization vs. terror, Victor Davis Hanson: Surreal Gaza, Roger L. Simon: Israel Alone, Melanie Phillips: the Moral Battleground, John Hinderaker: Internecine Warfare