0

Wednesday wit – Exit Stage Left

Some climate humour.

Watts Up With That?

Josh writes: BishopHill has this story –

Republicans in the US House of Representatives are currently trying to get a grip on one small part of the Washington bureaucracy by trying to get the National Science Foundation to concentrate on funding useful science. Lamar Smith, the Texas Congressman who is leading the charge, is firing off shots over NSF’s funding for public necessities like a climate change themed musical, an effort that set the taxpayer back some $700,000. He wants standards set in place – things like “increasing the health and welfare of the public”.

Cartoons by Josh

View original post

Advertisements
0

Stop The Devastation of Peoples Lives By Speculating with No Data: Remembering Cattle And Methane Emissions

Very interesting and revealing piece I hadn’t yet seen on my WUWT feed, shared to Facebook by friend Mick Wenlock where I saw it.

Watts Up With That?

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

Release of early data from NASA’s OCO2 satellite triggered the typical nonsense. The usual people talked about the modern equivalent of how many angels on the head of a pin, when they haven’t even established the existence of angels. The initial OCO2 data appears to show most estimates and assumptions were wrong. This might explain NASA’s hesitancy to release all the information, especially with regard to sources and sinks. If nothing else, the maps show the CO2 is not well mixed. The wider truth is that every piece of data in the climate debate is a very crude estimate created for a political or scientific agenda, including those used by many skeptics.

Kip Hansen’s essay “Are we Chasing Imaginary Numbers?”speaks to an important point about approximations. It reminded me about learning navigation and taking what was called “a three star fix”. The…

View original post 2,502 more words

0

The Hood Robin Syndrome

Couldn’t be more clear than this excellent article. Thank you Willis Eschenbach.

Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

There’s a new study out, under the imprimatur of the Energy Institute of the Haas School of Business in Berkeley, California, entitled The Distributional Effects of U.S. Clean Energy Tax Credits.  As the title implies, it looks at who actually profited from the various “green energy” tax credits across the United States. SPOILER ALERT! It wasn’t the poor folks.

How much money are we talking about? Well, the paper says that from 2006 to 2012, the taxpayers have been on the hook for $18 BILLION DOLLARS to fund these subsidies, money that would have otherwise gone into the General Fund.

And just how much money is eighteen billion dollars? Here’s one way to think about eighteen gigabucks, regarding safe, clean drinking water.

Water Wells for Africa reports from their ongoing projects that on average it has cost them about $3.50 per person ($7,000 per well…

View original post 1,411 more words

0

Skepticblog » Conspiracy Thinking

I do love how many of the comments to Steven’s blog item on Conspiracy Thinking prove exactly what he says in his article!

SkepticBlog is a collaboration among some of the most recognized names in promoting science, critical thinking, and skepticism. Regular bloggers include: Brian Dunning, Daniel Loxton, Donald Prothero, Mark Edward, Michael Shermer, and Steven Novella. This site is hosted by the Skeptics Society.

Source: Skepticblog » Conspiracy Thinking

0

A new book in which I [Anthony Watts] have a chapter: Climate Change: The Facts

A very worthwhile read for those of us who refuse to just accept global climate alarmism unsupported by science.

Watts Up With That?

climate-change-facts-bookFrom Steynonline:

Climate Change: The Facts has been put together by our friends at the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia, edited by Alan Moran, and features 22 essays on the science, politics and economics of “climate change”.

[It features Mark Steyn on the Mann Hockey Stick debacle,] Joanne Nova on the climate-change gravy train; Britain’s former Chancellor Nigel Lawson on the economic consequences of abandoning fossil fuels; Patrick Michaels on the growing chasm between the predictions of the IPCC and real-world temperatures, Garth Paltridge on the damage such failed forecasts are doing to science, and Donna Laframboise on the damage the Big Climate alarmists have done to the IPCC; professors Richard Lindzen, Bob Carter and Willie Soon on climate sensitivity and factors such as greenhouse gases, natural variability, and the role of the sun…

Oh, don’t worry, Michael E Mann and his “hockey stick” are in the book…

View original post 757 more words