Dr. Hansen Eats Cocoa Puffs

The video in this post over at Watts Up With That demonstrates once again that Dr. James Hansen with Nasa clearly eats Cocoa Puffs. He's said that "the ocean's will begin to boil..." Under any reasonable scenario that I'm aware of, predicted temperatures (EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE THAT WE'RE DOING IT) change only a couple of degrees. So either Columbia University teaches a different kind of thermodynamics than I learned, or he is pretty much cuckoo...



I would LOVE to see the energy balance calculations showing how the oceans boil.

Opportunity for Hypocricy: Winegate

On the following issue, I intend to be almost 100% hypocritical. Dr. Dipak Das, a UCONN researcher apparently falsified data that showed health benefits of red wine. In discussions on scientific endeavors, I insist that the data be legitimate and the conclusions made from them are based on reasonable assumptions. Aside from no obvious physical evidence confronting me each day, that is the primary reason that I don't buy into all of the global warming (aka global climate change, global weirding, other aliases that fit this year's data). The basic underlying data isn't even easily available and we depend on a couple of clearly motivated (regardless of HOW/WHY they are motivated) nerds that think they are too smart to need to explain themselves to the rest of the world. When their methods of hiding things and making adjustments to UNDERLYING DATA to make it "fit" were exposed, that did it for me. Those guys were doing something for which a 6th grade science teacher would flunk a kid.

Back to the point... Dr. Das MAY, ALLEGEDLY, POTENTIALLY have messed with the data. However, as a true believer and practician of the "Glass of Red Wine a Day" religion (when I can), I refuse to believe that one of he apostles hadn't been preaching the truth. Unfortunately, there appear to be sufficient sources to prove the legitimacy of this damaging peice of information that I will now resume ignoring. Wine-gate Information Sources:

• Winegate: Red wine health researcher falsified data - Watts Up With That
  
• University Suspects Fraud by a Researcher Who Studied Red Wine - New York Times
  
• Red-Wine Researcher Charged With 'Photoshop' Fraud - Medscape News Today
  
• Red wine researcher said to falsify data - CNN
  
• Red Wine’s Health Benefits May Have Resulted from Falsified Research Data - DietsInReview.com
  

Cheers!

Climategate 2.0 - The Crooks Skated Again

{EAV:86cf06edf9ab240e}
How is it that anyone who may have valid questions about scientific data has a tough time getting more than a couple of words in edgewise in a discussion about global warming/climate change/weirding/whatever's next with some political science/history major flunkie who speaks the party line and thinks they understand statistics, but many thousands of emails between the guys who started this whole mess doesn't fully discredit them? Maybe we should have gotten some of the AGW proponents like Michael Mann or Phil Jones to comment on some of their employees height in relation to the height of their wife. Apparently that's all it takes to discredit you from a more important goal of something like running the country (see Herman Cain hackjob at Politico).

Regardless of whether their wives are a similar height to any of their coworkers, it drives be absolutely batty that we let people get away with bunk like the original climategate emails, which at least put a moment of hesitation into major policy makers and the public. But the wonks on the left who are using this as a wedge issue can't let go EVEN WHEN THE PERPS DO IT AGAIN, as evidenced by the utter lack of stories on this in the media and the continued mention of global warming (or appropriate, up-to-the-minute-fits-the-data-now alias):

• Climategate 2.0 - New Emails Rock the Global Warming Debate Forbes.com
  
• Climategate 2.0 Emails .torrent file - You’ll need a bit torrent client
  
• Original Climategate Emails .torrent file - You’ll need a bit torrent client
  

I believe, based on some data I have seen, that there are in fact strange things happening in the climate. However I don't believe that there are that many catastrophic changes going on at this point. Based on the climate's behavior in the past when concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) & hydrocarbons like methane (CH4) were higher, I do not believe that the carbon dioxide that has been put into the atmosphere by burning fuel over the last couple of hundred years has had any statistically significant measurable affect on the climate (Univ of East Anglia, Penn State, & the IPCC statistics show you can prove anything). That does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that I don't think we should do everything we can to smartly decrease the amount of pollution we spread around the world as well as limit the amount of damage to natural resources. Sustainability is an entirely different focus than climate science, though the two often get commingled. For resources that are finite, we should decrease their usage to extend the quality of life that we have attained. As the lifeblood of all the plant life on the planet, I do not think that CO2 qualifies as pollution. Whatever EPA wonk came up with that one... I can definitively say that they are an idiot. Updated to correct torrent link for Climategate 2.0 as well as add the original emails so they are all in one place.

Debate? Nah... It's Over Already, MmmK?

While I despise listening to politicians blather on with party line after party line, the potential debate between Inhofe and Markey discussed at Junk Science could be interesting. Both of the fellas are pretty staunchly in there corners, so I do not expec them to listen to each other. But if the moderator could keep them in check, they could get some interesting points on the table.

OR WHAT, EH?

Sometimes a nation bends to pressures from NGOs or even state actors, but others they don't. Often when they don't they couch their reason with well-spoken diplomacy crafted to allow them to later do whatever they deem necessary and remain consistent with previous statements. However, sometimes they just tell the NGO what amounts to the 7 year old child's reponse: OR WHAT?

In the case of Canada and their interaction with the UN, maybe it's time to bow up 7-year old Canadian style with a big old OR WHAT, EH?