Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
carbon offset / trading greenhouse kyoto climate model Inconvenient Truth bio fuel ipcc Glacier

Feinstein says “No!” to solar panels in desert

Kent Bernhard Jr. has written a very well-thought opinion in Portfolio.com. He discusses the realities of creating energy to support our lifestyles and the inherent difficulty in doing so without disturbing the environment in some way. There are no easy answers and no secret formula to create fuel for our consumption. In fact, the only way that we can not affect the environment is to probably revert to the ways of the historical Native American Indians.

Mr. Bernhard goes into great detail on the subject.  He discusses natural gas, wind power, and nuclear.  Please click through and read the entire article but my version will only focus on the first part. In this sampling he discusses Sen. Diane Feinstein and her efforts to block solar energy from the desert.

Time for a Climate Change Plan B

Nigel Lawson has done a remarkable job of explaining the basic problem with limiting the use of carbon based fuels in our world today. His argument doesn’t really take a side on the merits of the science but rather on the realities of economics. His opinion recently showed up in the Wall Street Journal and I have taken the liberty to include selected parts here.  I suggest that you click through to read the entire article.

Lord Lawson was U.K. chancellor of the exchequer in the Thatcher government from 1983 to 1989. He is the author of “An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming” (Overlook Duckworth, paperback 2009), and is chairman of the recently formed Global Warming Policy Foundation (www.thegwpf.org).

IPCC and the Trick

Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit(one of the MMs of the Climategate emails) recently published an analysis and history of the “trick” that was accomplished and discussed in the “stolen” emails from the CRU of East Anglia.  I encourage you to jump over to Steve’s article to read the full analysis but I would like to include a few paragraphs here in the hope that you will want more information that Steve supplies.

Much recent attention has been paid to the email about the trick and the effort to hide the decline. Climate scientists have complained that this email has been taken out of context. In this case, Im not sure that its in their interests that this email be placed in context because the context leads right back to a meeting of IPCC authors in Tanzania, raising serious questions about the role of IPCC itself in hiding the decline in the Briffa reconstruction.

Lord Turnbull’s comments

I thought that Lord Turnbull’s speach in front of the House of Lords on December 8, 2009 was very well done. It does an excellent job of praising many in the community for their efforts in addition to appropriately questioning the correct next action. As this is a public forum paid for by British taxpayers, I feel that I can include his complete comments here.

I especially like the realism in his comments about the exporting of carbon usage to China (or other less developed countries) and then blaming those countries for their dramatic increase. This is an issue that is often overlooked in the discussion of curtailing carbon output in any individual country.

John Stossel on climate change

John Stossel’s new show discusses global warming and climate change. John has been quoted on this site before. In general, Mr. Stossel takes a hard look at the various false representations that are presented to people and makes everyone think about their conclusions. I hope that his new show continues this tradition.

Does the problem of ClimateGate bode ill for science as a discipline?

Does the problem of ClimateGate bode ill for science as a discipline? This commentary from the Wall Street Journal thinks it might.

With science, the public accepts the reliability of the scientific method. We accept that results are checked and double-checked. We accept that there is repeated analysis and inspection on the problems and that if someone disagrees, there is a mature and reasonable discussion of the issues.

Obviously, the East Anglia CRU emails show that the discussion is not very open. It shows that some people are willing to go out of their way to discredit others. It also shows a general unwillingness to publicly display the technique used to arrive at a conclusion. This all goes against the scientific methodology.

Is this Dilbert on ClimateGate?

Is Scott Adams’ Dilbert making fun of the current ClimateGate controversy?

In ClimateGate, really smart researchers on the climate took a bunch of data and made some conclusions. They didn’t think their pointy-haired constituents that paid their salaries deserved to have all of the data – instead they gave us a thimble of the data. Of course, in their case they didn’t tell us to wear the thimble like a hat – they just said that we should trust them since they are scientists and know what is good for us. In fact that big pile of paper that Dilbert is carrying doesn’t exist from Paul Jones and his friends – they threw the pile of paper away and just left the thimble!

Rex Murphy on ClimateGate

While Rex doesn’t deliver a joke nearly as well as Jon Stewart, his analysis on the current scandal surrounding the emails that were “released” from CRU at East Anglia is very well delivered.  I don’t have a transcript of his commentary to share but in the video below you will hear him speak of the lack of professionalism that is shown in these emails. That lack of professionalism does not include the informal banter of colleagues (which is totally appropriate) but rather the general sense that there is a withholding of evidence and truth from the process.

If you are not familiar with the work of Mr. Murphy, I suggest you jump over to his written commentaries that appear on the Globe and Mail.

A Reason To Be Skeptical

David Harsanyi has an excellent editorial on the ClimateGate fiasco that has been dominating this blog and many others across the blogosphere.  His editorial originally appeared on RealClearPolitics.  He is allowing me to reproduce parts of it here and I encourage you to jump over to the full article to read more.

Who knows? In the long run, global warming skeptics may be wrong, but the importance of healthy skepticism in the face of conventional thinking is, once again, validated.


We found out that respected men discussed the manipulation of science, the blocking of Freedom of Information requests, the exclusion of dissenting scientists from debate, the removal of dissent from the peer-reviewed publications, and the discarding of historical temperature data and e-mail evidence.

Jon Stewart Talks Climategate

I cannot believe that I am showing Jon Stewart on this site! You know it is bad when Jon decides to jump on the bandwagon by making fun of the “tricks” and “lost data” revealed in the CRU emalls that were recently “released” from East Anglia.

Jon Stewart Talks Climategate