The Truth Matters

Global Warming

Hurricane season ends with barely a whimper

This just shows the outright insanity of the left wing loons who would wish death and destruction on other people just to win a few talking points. These loons have No concept of reality, no critical thinking skills and have a sociopathic personality disorder. Liberalism is definitely a mental disorder and they need to be committed to the nearest asylum to protect the rest of the public.  (Yesterday | post #3)

Global Warming

Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Barack Obamaa s ...

Done.  (Tuesday | post #43)

Global Warming

Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Barack Obamaa s ...

WRONG! Phil Jones has just been relieved of duty at the UEA pending the outcome of an investigation into the Climategate scandal. Michael Mann is also under investigation by the University of Pennsylvania for the Climategate scandal. You lose again.  (Tuesday | post #40)

Global Warming

Stagnating Temperatures: Climatologists Baffled by Global Warmi...

If you don't believe that the data has been thoroughly manipulated to make the present warmer and the past cooler, just look at the difference between the GISS temperature dataset for 1999 and how much the 2008 version has changed. http://wattsupwith that.com/2008/11/1 4/the-evolution-of -the-giss-temperat ure-product/ Why should we believe anything they tell us?  (Monday | post #329)

Global Warming

Stagnating Temperatures: Climatologists Baffled by Global Warmi...

Liberal is an anagram of braille. Appropriate because they appear unable to see or read about the climate science scandals.—Tim Ball  (Monday | post #326)

Global Warming

GOP checking on stolen global-warming e-mails

From the Financial Times: Secrecy, not privacy, is at the rotten heart of this bad behavior by ostensibly good scientists. Why should research funding institutions and taxpayers fund scientists who deliberately delay, obfuscate and deny open access to their research? Why should scientific journals publish peer-reviewed research where the submitting scientists have not made every reasonable effort to make their work – from raw data to sophisticated computer simulations – as transparent and accessible as possible? Why should responsible policymakers in America, Europe, Asia and Latin America make decisions affecting people’s health, wealth and future based on opaque and inaccessible science? They should not. The issue here is not about good or bad science, it is about insisting that scientists and their work be open and transparent enough so that research can be effectively reviewed by broader communities of interest. Open science minimises the likelihood and consequences of bad science. Concealment and secrecy invites mischief; too many scientists seeking influence accept the invitation. Achieving this is simple and inexpensive. It is not done by more rigorous enforcement of the Freedom of Information Act, although that would help. It comes from branding “openness” into every link of the scientific research value chain. Public or tax-deductible research funding should be contingent upon maximum transparency. Scientists and affiliated institutions that will not make the research process as transparent as the end result will be asked to return the money or risk denial of future funds. University accreditation should be contingent not just upon faculty research and publication but by demonstrating policies and practices that champion data sharing. Professional societies and journals should make data sharing a condition of membership and publication. Researchers must be pushed to be more open at every step of their process. Public interest suggests scientists and their sponsoring institutions be made as legally, financially, professionally and ethically as uncomfortable as possible about concealing and withholding relevant research information. If the University of East Anglia had been sharing more of its data and the computer models and statistical simulations running that data, the email hack would have been much ado about nothing. When doing important research about the potential future of the planet, scientists should have nothing to hide. Their obligation to the truth is an obligation to openness.  (Monday | post #43)

Global Warming

GOP checking on stolen global-warming e-mails

The IPCC simply needs to be completely defunded and removed from the discussion. It was instituted as a political, not scientific, establishment with the express intent of investigating it’s predetermined result which is that there is global warming, that it is human caused, and the only remedy is to give the United Nations authority over the energy production of every country. There is no compelling reason that it should continue and every compelling reason it should be defunct. It has politicized science and will continue to do so. Even if we can open the debate, the fact that there is a predetermined course of action which ends with U.N. control of the economies through carbon taxes, and redistributes the prosperity of first world countries, makes it a mockery to even attempt to clean up the IPCC.  (Monday | post #39)

Global Warming

Wind Farm May Violate Endangered Species Act

Back on topic - Here's a wind farm that may be more bird friendly and take up less land area. http://sciencenow. sciencemag.org/cgi /content/full/2009 /1124/1?etoc Arranging wind turbines like a school of fish could reduce the amount of land they take up by 100-fold while maintaining their electrical output, say researchers. Wind farms based on the approach might also be considerably safer for migrating birds. Whether it's Lance Armstrong bicycling behind his teammates in the Tour de France or a storm of fish slicing their way through the ocean, animals benefit from drafting. The leader breaks through the calm air or water, while the followers enjoy the reduced resistance in the leader's wake. The same doesn't hold true for horizontal-axis wind turbines(HAWTs), the most common kind of windmill. Placing one HAWT in another's draft drastically reduces the efficiency of the trailing windmill. That's because the turbulent breeze created by the leading turbine's blades can't propel the trailing blades as well as an unobstructed airflow. So engineers spread the giant fans across hundreds of hectares of land--a practice that has created a backlash from people who find the turbines unsightly. Turn a windmill on its side, so to speak, and the drafting benefit returns. That's what two fluid dynamicists from the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena have discovered. Robert Whittlesey and John Dabiri decided to study how a new type of generator, called a vertical-axis wind turbine (VAWT), stacked up against its more conventional counterpart. Bunching up the vertical-axis turbines behind a leader pays off, Whittlesey and Dabiri reported yesterday at the annual meeting of the American Physical Society in Minneapolis, Minnesota. In fact, using a new mathematical model they developed from the Glendora data, the researchers found that arranging the VAWT arrays just like schools of fish produced the best results. Such tightly packed VAWT arrays can produce as much electricity as conventional windmills, all while using as little as one-hundredth of the land area. "I don't think I expected to see as great an improvement in the land use," says Whittlesey. The study revealed that the most efficient arrangement involved alternating the rotational direction of the turbines: a clockwise rotation in the lead turbine, say, with two counterclockwise rotators next in line, followed by three clockwise rotators, and so on. Whittlesey notes that the models are preliminary, so even greater improvements might be possible with further study. And he says that the VAWT arrays could be much less deadly to birds because "the faster they spin, the more solid they appear," thereby allowing birds to see the turbines more easily and navigate around them.  (Monday Nov 30 | post #1813)

Global Warming

The Day Global Warming Stood Still

Obviously, you obfuscate. You mean the other data sets don't match the massaged and manipulated datasets showing higher temperatures and therefore the dendro record after 1960 must be eliminated. However, the trees should react to any past climate change in the same manner - either that, or the trees are not responding to ANY climate change and are responding instead to precipitation changes, nutrient changes, crowding or isolation, storms, landslides, etc. and the dendrochronology records are worthless to determine recent or past changes and should be discarded en toto. You can't have it both ways just because it suits your agenda. You lose again.  (Monday Nov 30 | post #64)

Global Warming

GOP checking on stolen global-warming e-mails

Professor Don Easterbrook left this comment on the ABC news site: I’ve spent 4 decades studying global climate change and as a scientist I am appalled at Krugman’s cavalier shrugging off the Hadley email scandal as ‘just the way scientists talk among themselves.’ That’s like saying it’s alright for politicians to be corrupt because that’s the way they are. Legitimate scientists do not doctor data, delete data they don’t like, hide data they don’t want seen, hijack the peer review process, personally attack other scientists whose views differ from theirs, send fraudulent data to the IPCC that is used to perpetuate the greatest hoax in the history of science, provide false data to further legislation on climate change that will result in huge profits for corrupt lobbyists and politicians, and tell outright lies about scientific data. Posted by: Don Easterbrook | Nov 29, 2009 1:57:05 PM  (Sunday Nov 29 | post #27)

Global Warming

GOP checking on stolen global-warming e-mails

You are the one who has been taken in by a group of charlatans. You are truly clueless - especially after CRU just admitted that it threw out the original temperature data. All that exists anymore is the manipulated and homogenized new data promulgated by these fraudsters. You cannot rely on any pronouncements from these people when you cannot rely on the veracity of their data. Nor can you check out the veracity of their methods. Any claim is suspect. Do your homework and don't just be a shill for the AGW agenda.  (Sunday Nov 29 | post #25)

Global Warming

GOP checking on stolen global-warming e-mails

Circular logic here -GIGO. All the parties you mentioned used the same flawed data (or parts of it) to reach their conclusions. Meanwhile, the UK CRU and NOAA collaborated and colluded in what research to present and even to exclude dissenting research even at the peer review level (they reviewed each others work). They then chose the data to present in the IPCC reports while deleting and ignoring the reports of some of the IPCC's lead authors because they disagreed with the predetermined conclusion. This is all there for anyone to see in the available emails. It seems the partisan ignoramuses on the left will do anything to defend the massive data manipulation that has been exposed in the growing Climategate scandal while continuing to push their agenda. You have no credibility.  (Sunday Nov 29 | post #23)