Peer Review – ROFLMAO

Americans are paying a lot of money for “scientific” research – except it is not peer-reviewed science, so therefor it is not good science. It is bad science. Still we pay.

The same “scientific” research is being milked by government to charge Americans for carbon dioxide (and other) abatement, while there is no measureable global warming.

The “Peer Review” process has been severely and blatantly abrogated – ONLY SCIENTISTS WHO AGREE (warmists) PERFORM THE “Review,” we now learn. And then, it is a thin review.

This fact could not be more obvious; raw data or algorithms are not released and mysteriously disappear, without a word or a peep of concern expressed by the correcting “scientists,” whose work is “peer reviewed” they lie.

This is not science we are paying for – it is fraud, and criminal fraud at that; since freedom of information act violations are prevalant, at least.

Hadley CRU, NASA GISS, New Zealand NIWA – we have a world-wide pandemic of bad, un-reviewed science. It’s not that there is no longer debate of the “science;” instead science has been made impossible by widespread abrogation of the key component, peer review. Debate has been utterly squelched.

Example of Climate Work That Needs to be Checked and Replicated

Danger - data is unscientific

Reverse Engineered Data - all the algorithms and raw data are not available.

The GISS data set, created by the Goddard Center of NASA, takes the USHCN data set and somehow uses nearby stations to correct for anomalous stations. I say somehow, because, incredibly, these government scientists, whose research is funded by taxpayers and is being used to make major policy decisions, refuse to release their algorithms or methodology details publicly. They keep it all secret! Their adjustments are a big black box that none of us are allowed to look into (and remember, these adjustments account for the vast majority of reported warming in the last century).

Advertisements

Climate Scientists Document Sinister Manifestation of Climate Change

After discovering just about every way possible to “DO SEX TO” climate data, Hadley CRU climatologists have discovered a new, horrible weather phenomenon which again threatens extinction of the noble polar bear.

Climate scientists are unparalleled fraudsters, at least the ones that all agree.

Again, Moonbattery: Global Warming Will Cause It to Rain Polar Bears

Kyoto, Montreal, Whatever: Bullcrap

By government order, based on the Montreal Protocol (and as it turns out, nothing in particular), the cost of asthma inhalers is going up, to save the ozone layer. Many asthmatics won’t use their inhalers as much, or when the need is indicated. Actually, a great many won’t. Some asthmatics won’t have inhalers. Unfortunately, this will mean death for some asthmatics. But it saves the ozone layer.

Asthma inhalers go green but also cost more green
Oakland Tribune February 9, 2008 Barbara Anderson

Asthma inhalers are going green.

And users are seeing red over paying more for the new, environmentally friendly devices.

But like it or not, asthmatics who carry inhalers containing albuterol, a quick-acting drug that opens airways, will be switched to new inhalers soon — if they havent already — that are free of chlorofluorocarbons, an ozone-depleting propellant.

The old devices — called CFC inhalers — will be banned for use in the United States on Dec. 31.

Pharmacists say its increasingly difficult to order CFC inhalers. Manufacturers began phasing them out a year or two ago for inhalers that contain hydrofluoroalkane, or HFA, a more ozone-friendly propellant.

The new inhalers are as effective as the old ones, pharmacists and doctors say. But they’re more expensive and operating them requires some getting used to.

Overall, prices of the new inhalers are higher because there are no generic versions, said Nancy Asai, a pharmacist in Fresno. And that means higher insurance co-payments for the brand-name drugs. The new inhalers typically cost from $45 to $65, Asai said.

One brand of inhaler, ProAir HFA, is available for about $30 at some discount pharmacies. But the old generic albuterol inhalers cost less than that.

The hope is prices for the new inhalers will drop, Asai said.

David Harvey, 40, a Fresno radio salesman, paid about $25 for his albuterol inhaler a year ago. Today, he pays about $45 for the drug.

The government ban on CFC inhalers is in response to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, an international pact that called for the elimination of ozone-depleting chemicals.

The new inhalers are good for the environment, said Dr. Richard DeMera, a Fresno allergist. We needed to do this, he said. But patients are having to pay a higher co-pay for their inhalers.

Yes, many asthmatics won’t use their inhalers as much. It should save the ozone. We all must make sacrifices.

But wait; real scientific results say that there is no strong reason to have banned CFCs in the first place:

Ozone hole theory faces lab problems

Luboš Motl the reference frame September 29, 2007

. . . Even though this should have been a good enough reason to make lab experiments with all these compounds, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory apparently did these experiments only recently. Their experiments were probably not trivial and required some low-temperature engineering. What is their result for the rate of photolysis of Cl₂O₂?

It is almost ten times smaller than needed for the existing ozone hole theories.

That’s a huge problem. But only Markus Rex of Potsdam was brave enough to look at the ozone depletion theory with these new data. A lot of things have obviously changed. A dramatic conclusion is that

At least 60% of observed ozone depletion is due to an unknown mechanism.

At least all quantitative features of the models – that have been considered a part of the “scientific consensus” – suddenly become uncertain again. One modest implication is that we certainly no longer know which molecules are actually important for ozone depletion and whether most of this process is due to completely different reasons, perhaps unrelated to chlorine and bromine. . . .

Shades of global warming! Computer models – phoney computer models – have supplanted empirical science. Bogus theory comes from computer. Is there Latin for it? Don’t get me wrong. I am against unnecessary pollution as much as anybody. But $billions and $billions have been spent replacing CFC with vastly more expensive refrigerants or propellants, for no good reason. Are we really going to take random action to ban this chemical and that byproduct, regardless of human need; regardless of impact, regardless of the cost, and imagine that the requirement has a scientific purpose; that the cost is scientifically justified?

What do we really have against asthmatics? What do we really have against energy?

4 Sources Admit Fastest Temp Change in History – DOWN

Trust me, this is not good news. If global temperatures continue down at the present rate, humans will need vastly more energy and more food – just as central government planners have determined to reduce your energy supply by making energy vastly more expensive.

That’s right. In Senate Bill S. 2191 (See The Lieberman-Warner Cap and Trade Bill: Quick Summary and Analysis) uninformed persons propose to drastically increase the cost of your energy, and even your food; as the Earth cools at the fastest rate ever observed. This is not a good idea right now; but it never was anyway. No data has ever been produced showing that anthropogenic carbon dioxide contributes to global warming. Every computer model based on this fallacious presumption has failed to predict climate or temperature. As carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up, temperature has gone down – at the fastest (up or down) rate ever observed.

Perhaps the most important collective action we can take, for the future of our children and for human inhabitants of Earth, is to STOP profoundly perverse legislative travesties such as S. 2191.

H/T: Moonbattery As Temperatures Cool, Global Warming Hype . . .

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling by Michael Asher, DailyTech.com

[note, added 8/31/08 at 17:20: the year referred to ended in February, 2008; I wish I had posted this at that time, but I didn’t – better late than never. Admittedly the rate moderated, however the precipitous drop deserves to be recognized for what it is.]

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn’t itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let’s hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans — and most of the crops and animals we depend on — prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Secret To Wind Energy: Pay Twice!

Pristine Ecosystem Stirring Device

Pristine Ecosystem Stirring Device

Americans can take great comfort in the fact that factories in China will require much less energy cost than American factories, because the Chinese factories will use fossil fuel.  Consider it a vacation if you’re unemployed. As American energy expert and Messiah Obama explained last week, China’s infrastucture is VASTLY superior to ours. China has no such energy experts (now that is an infrastructure feature we should seek to emulate)!

There is a Green Revolution off Germany’s coast; all that’s required is a price floor, DOUBLING THE PRICE OF ENERGY! Soon, even Ted Kennedy will roll over for off-shore wind farms; when he hears the energy costs twice as much. There are no dead bats, there are no dead birds (unless you check); and they don’t build them in China. Or Indonesia. Or Malaysia. Or India. Or anywhere else with INFRASTRUCTURE (by definition).

But maybe Germany lacks vast tracts of unused land targeted by T. Boone Pickens for unlimited energy production. Let me guess that T. Boone Pickens does not propose to fund the transmission system (no, it’s not really a guess). Picken’s wind farms will require the same guaranteed price floor as the Green Revolution off Germany. Except Pickens will still get paid, when the wind doesn’t blow (safe bet).

(benchmark: 15 cents per kilowatt hour – check your bill. I’ll be happy to provide you power at that cost; but it will be nuclear, which has an infinitesimal environmental impact, in comparison).

A Green Revolution off Germany’s Coast

. . . What has sparked this boom is Germany’s Renewable Energy Law (EEG) — or more precisely, the changes Germany’s parliament’s made to it in early June. The EEG sets fixed rates which have to be paid for renewable energy. Until now, the rate was 9 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity coming from offshore wind parks. The change means that operators can now bank on 15 cents per kilowatt hour. “That has an impact,” Ulf Gerder of the German WindEnergy Association says.

The first electricity from the flagship project Alpha Ventus is supposed to hit the grid in October. The 12 wind turbines are supplied by manufacturers Repower and Multibrid, and they will be erected in a lattice-like formation at a distance of 800 meters (a half mile) apart, meaning the wind farm will stretch over an area of four square kilometres (1.5 square miles) — the size of 550 football fields.

‘World Premiere’

The advantages of such an offshore wind farm are clear. The ones currently being planned in Germany won’t be visible from land, so people are unlikely to complain about them. And, because of the strength and consistency of sea winds, wind turbines located off the coast generate more power.

On the other hand, the challenges are greater as well. The water at the site of the proposed Alpha Ventus wind turbines in the North Sea is 30 to 40 meters deep — and the turbines have to be anchored in the seabed with steel posts. Spokesman Wiese talks about a “world premiere”, as the existing offshore wind farms off Scotland and Denmark stand in much shallower water.

Such difficulties also up the price tag. Alpha Ventus is to cost €180 million ($282 million) to build — nearly three times as much as a similar installation on land. The government is channelling €50 million ($78.7 million) into research. E.ON is footing the €40 million ($62.9 million) bill for the connection to the grid.

Such sums mean that offshore wind parks are likely to remain the province of established energy giants. To reach the government’s targets, €20 billion to €30 billion will have to be spent on wind turbine construction in the North and Baltic Seas. Smaller wind farms funded by local investment groups — a major part of the land-based windmill boom — won’t have a chance.

Maintenance promises to be expensive as well. Indeed, keeping offshore wind parks up and running makes up some 20 to 30 percent of total costs, according to industry estimates. Plus, the turbines have to be built to withstand gusts of 160 kilometers per hour and 15 meter high waves. On top of that there is the salty air — the Danish manufacturer Vestas, for example, has found corrosion to be a major problem on its offshore turbines.

article continues here . . .

James Hansen Worries About His Credibility

Earth in Dangerous Hands

Earth in Dangerous Hands

No Duh, Jim. Your keen perceptions are onto somthing. Too bad your computer models are not. How warm was Earth supposed to be today, according to your models? What credibility can you possibly have? Not one of your models even comes close, given over 20 years to play. What a waste. How do you keep your job?

Loosing credibility is the very least of your problems, Jim. You have none. You did your talking already.

See James Hansen now says he doesn’t give a lot of talks. I’m trying to maintain my credibility as a scientest kook.

For James Hansen’s models, compared to reality, see Computer Modeling For Your Cash

Quoted as Saying
Climate Change Fraud – Because the debate is not over – Saturday, 16 August 2008

H/T: Gore Lied: James Hansen now says . . .

Democrat Climatology and Economics

1. Increasing the supply of oil will not reduce its price.
2. Photovoltaics work GREAT at night; A watt at night is just as cheap as a watt at noon, with photovoltaics. (When you need energy at night, you should REMEMBER the energy you had at noon).
3. Silicon has been unavailable to make photovoltaics and chips because of Bush and Cheney and Big Oil.
4. Higher transportation costs of food will help Americans lose weight.
5. Wind power is fine, in red states.
6. The oceans temperatures are insignificant if they are going down.
7. Cosmic rays are a Republican invention.
8. ANWR and Florida off-shore are exquisitely fragile ecosystems, because oil exists under them.
9. Antarctic ice is just about gone.
10. Chinese environmental practices are far advanced beyond American Big Oil and thus not threatening the exquisitely fragile ecosystem off-shore Florida localized above the oil.
11. Economic progress, if centrally planned, will revolutionize humanity (as it has before). This can be called “change.”
12. Temperature is insignificant if it is going down.
13. American oil companies have caused the high gasoline prices in the US and China.
14. Commodity markets have a rule that speculators only can purchase oil on margin; and not sell it on margin.
15. Speculators are unconcerned about the supply of oil increasing. They will only continue to drive prices up no matter how much supply is increased.
16. Comprehensive, central planning makes the best economy. Energy is only one example.
17. Democrats are good at planning oil production. See?
18. Prudhoe Bay’s exquisitely fragile ecosystem only looks healthy today.
19. The brilliance of ethanol from corn is a shining example of the benefits of comprehensive central planning.
20. Grain products cause obesity anyway.

Much more to come. Or add yours.