denying global warming is such a chumps' hobby...

it's like (as joe the plumber might say if he were sane but still illiterate), when we're all dead the deniers won't have anybody to call them asshole on the Washington Monthly website...

so let me do a little preemptive announcing -- yep, they are.

The dumbing down of the WSJ continues.

Thank you, Rupert Murdoch.

Is Strassel suggesting that every time an employee of an agency puts together a memo, on his or her own, it is supposed to get "billing" as an agency report? That the agency has no right to critique it, or distance itself as a whole from what this or that employee writes or says to reporters, etc.? Correct me if I'm missing something about this affair ...

Bimbo writes:

The majority of it in fact references peer-reviewed studies.

No, the majority of it seems to be CTRL-V'd from Friends of Science publications, which cherry pick outliers in order to lie about science.

Thank you bimbo. You can shut up, now.

i asked an intelligent, honest conservative friend of mine recently why it is such a badge of honor on the right not merely to say "we don't think there should be a policy response to climate change because we puny humans don't know enough and are likely to screw up" (with which i would disagree but which i would at least recognize as a rational response to the real world) but also to say "it's not happening."

the best he could come up with is that on the right, the assumption is that concern over global warming is just a camouflage for a knee-jerk attack on capitalism by drug-crazed hippies.

JM, the wsj editorial page has been completely insane for at least 25-30 years now: can't blame that on murdoch.

Take it away, RealClimate:

what solid peer reviewed science do they cite for support? A heavily-criticised blog posting showing that there are bi-decadal periods in climate data and that this proves it was the sun wot done it. The work of an award-winning astrologer (one Theodor Landscheidt, who also thought that the rise of Hitler and Stalin were due to cosmic cycles), a classic Courtillot paper we’ve discussed before, the aforementioned FoS web page, another web page run by Doug Hoyt, a paper by Garth Paltridge reporting on artifacts in the NCEP reanalysis of water vapour that are in contradiction to every other reanalysis, direct observations and satellite data, a complete reprint of another un-peer reviewed paper by William Gray, a nonsense paper by Miskolczi etc. etc. I’m not quite sure how this is supposed to compete with the four rounds of international scientific and governmental review of the IPCC or the rounds of review of the CCSP reports….

They don’t even notice the contradictions in their own cites. For instance, they show a figure that demonstrates that galactic cosmic ray and solar trends are non-existent from 1957 on, and yet cheerfully quote Scafetta and West who claim that almost all of the recent trend is solar driven! They claim that climate sensitivity is very small while failing to realise that this implies that solar variability can’t have any effect either. They claim that GCM simulations produced trends over the twentieth century of 1.6 to 3.74ºC - which is simply (and bizarrely) wrong (though with all due respect, that one seems to come directly from Mr. Gregory). Even more curious, Carlin appears to be a big fan of geo-engineering, but how this squares with his apparent belief that we know nothing about what drives climate, is puzzling. A sine qua non of geo-engineering is that we need models to be able to predict what is likely to happen, and if you think they are all wrong, how could you have any faith that you could effectively manage a geo-engineering approach?

Finally, they end up with the oddest claim in the submission: That because human welfare has increased over the twentieth century at a time when CO2 was increasing, this somehow implies that no amount of CO2 increases can ever cause a danger to human society. This is just boneheadly stupid.

Maybe we could send bimbo a pacifier?

JM, the wsj editorial page has been completely insane for at least 25-30 years now: can't blame that on murdoch.

Not to quibble with you, but when's the last time the WSJ came out in defense of ASTROLOGY?

I think the word you're looking for is 'crackpot'. Since the WSJ is a long-standing and enthusiastic defender of crackpot economics, it's not surprising to see a defense of crackpot geophysics.

...the WSJ came out in defense of ASTROLOGY?

Maybe someone should point them to famed psychic Edgar Cayce, who predicted in the 1940s that the earth was entering a period of climatic change, though he didn't say if any of it was caused by humans, AFAIK.

JM, implicitly, of course, during the reagan years, since the wsj editorial board worshipped the ground reagan walked on and since nancy dabbled with astrologers.

more broadly, JM, i'd say that there has been no argument too delusional for the wsj editorial pages for the lengthy span i noted earlier: when you're completely batshit crazy, you've reached the peak - you can't get any crazier!

The Oregonian published a LTE from a winger denouncing President Obama by saying, "Seems like Obama will quash anything that gets in the way of his carbon tax and climate change agenda. What happened to transparency? Integrity?" The letter included much of the argument used by Strassel - Seems as though form letters have been sent out to their troops. Look for more of them in your favorite newspaper.

WSJ Journo pukes out mixture of grotesque deceit and deranged ignorance!

Shock horror, film at 11

Today, the Wall Street Journal ran this wildly unpersuasive piece ... [R]elevant facts aren't smears, and Strassel's argument doesn't make any sense at all.
-----------------------

I've come to believe, or at least halfway believe, that the right-wing's fondness for putting forward nonsense arguments is deliberate, and has very little to do with "winning" the specific arguments themselves. I think their idea is that if enough nonsense is disseminated frequently enough by enough of the media, language and argument will be made meaningless to people who don't work hard to understand them, and ultimately to just about everyone.

Animal Farm as owner's manual.

Strassel sounds a lot like Dr Evil with the quoting.

Strassel tacitly acknowledges the importance of relevant facts by omitting so many of them from her article.

Man, I went over to that Kimberley Strassel piece and looked at the comments section. It really is depressing.
A graph of five-year temperature averages that shows warming, warming, warming, isn't enough to make them stop saying the earth has been cooling since 1998. They say things like the "liberals" have infiltrated the "scientists" and infected them with some kind of religious zeal about AGW. They add mindless non-sequiturs such as "Mars lost its polar ice--is Exxon-Mobil to blame?" and "Yosemite was carved by glaciers, so we've been warming for 10,000 years."
They literally revel in their ignorance and stupidity.

Fleas is right, and another issue with righties is anti-intellectualism and "intuition" as a base for thought. Here's a very telling anti-intellectual quote from the ironically named "American Thinker" site:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/obama_appoints_rush_limbaugh_l.html

The Left may think Rush is just an entertaining loudmouth, like Bill Maher or Jeanine Garofolo, who don't come within a stone's throw of Rush's IQ. Not so. Rush is a political philosopher and a devastating wit in the Burkean political tradition. That's our conservative tradition, which places its trust in human intuition, the profound, tacit wisdom that most of us share. (Unless it's been beaten out of you by an Ivy League education).

Why is intuition so fundamental? Because all human beings are experts at life. And like all experts, most of their knowledge is intuitive, not something you can write down into a large tome like Das Kapital. Edmund Burke noticed with remarkable insight that French politics of the Revolution was run by intellectuals, who tried to reason out every step of the process. The result was an utter disaster.

BTW, was Burke really that anti-intellectual?

As for the current topic: Many right-wingers argue, AGW is not credible because it is "arrogant to think that Man can noticeably alter the World" etc. Well no. Whether humanity can influence the world in X manner or not is a question to answer through scientific method, not a presumption or result of intuition anyway. And that's how those who posit AGW etc. have proceeded, even being aware of probabilistic issues v. certainties.

However, it definitely *is* arrogant to think that your intuitions about whether it seems likely we can or can't do X, or your intuitions about other peoples' ideas, are valid guides to belief.

PS: Anyone here ever work for "Grassroots Solutions"? What did you think of it?

What stands out about the denialists is that what they overwhelming believe -- and will say very explicitly -- is NOT that the majority of climate scientists are mistaken about anthropogenic global warming, and are therefore inappropriately and unnecessarily (though understandably, given their error) alarmed.

No. What they believe is that global warming is a monstrous, deliberate hoax by Evil Al Gore and the Evil Powerful Liberal Elites to destroy the country and impose a Big World Government Liberal Dictatorship, and to that end that Al Gore has organized a global conspiracy of corrupt, self-interested climate scientists who are systematically lying to the world about global warming.

After all, the IPCC is part of the United Nations! And some of its scientists are European! Enough said.

And they think that it's the Capitalist Freedom-Fighter Good Guy underdogs at ExxonMobil who are standing up to this Evil Liberal Conspiracy, struggling heroically against the awesome power of the Liberal Media to get the "truth" out to the American people, by supporting True Scientists like Carlin and a few honest public servants like Sen. Inhofe.

The level of ignorance and gullibility of the so-called "skeptics" is appalling, but what's even more frightening is their rabid, seething hatred.

It wouldn't be surprising to see them start targeting climate scientists with violence just as their comrades in the anti-abortion movement have targeted womens' health clinics and doctors.

Is Strassel and relation to Stossel? Sounds like it.

Other Mike, I have an acquaintance who swears that:

1] We're never going to run out of oil because God won't let that happen;

2] The oceans aren't going to rise because rich people built their homes on the coastline and rich people are smarter than the rest of us and they'd know if the water was rising, so obviously it isn't;

3] Global Warming is a plot by socialists to turn America into a nation of Atheists.

We don't talk much.

Serious question: Do any of the other industrialized nations have this sort of virulent and organized opposition to verifiable science? Is America the only one?

I am serious. I'd love to know.

Strassel is at least consistently wrong and dishonest. Some other WSJ editorialists are not quite so consistent.

Strassel: Unlike annual reports, the Obama EPA's endangerment finding is a policy act. As such, EPA is required to make public those agency documents that pertain to the decision, to allow for public comment. Court rulings say rulemaking records must include both "the evidence relied upon and the evidence discarded." In refusing to allow Mr. Carlin's study to be circulated, the agency essentially hid it from the docket.

That's true, isn't it?

A president who promised "transparency" is at least as secretive as his predecessor. This is merely one example.

It's true that Carlin only has a bachelor's degree in physics, but Al Gore doesn't even have that, and loads of people believe him.

This actually is a very unimportant debate right now, inasmuch as Carlin's "report" made it into the public after all, and the Senate is now to consider the Waxman-Markey bill. (I think this puts me in agreement with Steve Benen: Republicans are making too much of it, as Democrats made too much of the "silencing" of Hansen by Bush.) The US is financing considerable investment in reforestation (I'll supply a link later) and energy development. The only questions now are "How much?", "How soon?", and "How beneficial?" Those are economics questions, not "science" questions (where here the quotes around the word "science" conform to today's notion that science does not include economics.)

Howard: the best he could come up with is that on the right, the assumption is that concern over global warming is just a camouflage for a knee-jerk attack on capitalism by drug-crazed hippies.

Not "drug-crazed hippies" but NGOs and foreign governments. To pick one example, the Kyoto Treaty required signatory developed nations (Japan, EU) to buy CO2 offsets from developing nations (China). This was a bald transfer of money from wealthy nations to one that was less wealthy, most of which money went to fund new industrialization in China, including the financing of new coal-fired power plants and new purchase agreements for oil.

Other examples include requirements to transfer cash to Africa, though everybody knows that such cash will end up in the Swiss bank accounts of the dictators, rather than (say) reforestation of the base of Mt. Kilimanjaro.

America finances equatorial reforestation

Americans are also investing, through their purchases of CO2 offsets, in reforestation in Mexico, Ecuador, and Brazil.

And America is reforesting America.

second try

What was Carlin's supervisor doing while Carlin was producing this "hobby" report with government resources and on government time?

Hey Neil B, thanks for that quote from the 'American Thinker'.

So, what the article essentially argues is that 'reason' as a mental faculty is a way overrated, if not outright dangerous, and what really counts is 'intuition'.

That's why they call themselves the American Thinker and why they have this American patriot deeply lost in his thoughts on their banner.

I wouldn't have thought it possible that someone claiming their raison d'être to consist in being an analytical force would stoop to that kind of self-humiliation. But then of course, no sacrifice will ever be too great in the worship of the political philosopher Rush Limbaugh.

Carlin did get a physics degree from Cal Tech, before getting one in econ from MIT.

Didn't the EPA solicit internal comment on the finding?

According to UAH, June 2009 saw another — albeit small — drop in the global average temperature anomaly, from +0.04 deg. C in May to 0.00 deg. C in June, with the coolest anomaly (-0.03 deg. C) in the Tropics.

*The decadal temperature trend for the period December 1978 through June 2009 remains at +0.13 deg. C per decade.*

Hot diggety dog!

How much will this Climate bill cost?

Didn't the EPA solicit internal comment on the finding?

It wasn't a "finding," was an old man copying off of right-wing blogs.

And a physics degree earned God knows how many decades ago would have included how much climate science?

It's true that Carlin only has a bachelor's degree in physics, but Al Gore doesn't even have that, and loads of people believe him.

That's because Al Gore cites the consensus while Carlin cribs from some wingnut blog.

"Hiding" this is just like Bush because ... ?

Anyone care to comment on the the mammoth three-decade warming trend of .39 deg C ?

"Strassel seems to believe putting scare quotes around words she doesn't like somehow makes her 'argument' more 'compelling'."
—Steve Benen 12:45 PM

FIFY.

The Baker Wind Turbine is a major breakthrough in wind energy technology. The super quiet, Low Pressure Turbine is enclosed and 100% bird and people safe which allows the turbine to be installed and operated in close proximity to people. This eliminates the need for long transmission lines because the electricity is consumed close to where the electricity is generated. The 12 feet in diameter Model #3 Baker Wind Turbine is mounted on a car trailer and the unit is easily transported. Set-up is easy. The outriggers lift the turbine foundation and stabilize the turbine so that it can rotate 360 degrees. The fenders and tires are removed. No tower is needed; all that is necessary is a 6’ by 6’ wind flow. More efficient and powerful than a single dimension propeller driven windmill, this multidimensional wind energy turbine dynamic has never been seen before. Of course, the multidimensional turbine dynamic does not even resemble a single dimension propeller driven windmill. Google Baker Wind Turbine and two videos will appear; the longer video demonstrates the Low Pressure Turbine Dynamic.
Let me explain to you the basic turnaround in wind energy science and technology demonstrated by the Baker Wind Turbine. You don’t have to be a genius to understand wind energy.
First, the maximum amount of energy in the wind is directly in front of the wind. This is the basic and simple premise and is easily proven to anyone logically. (Aristotelian logic is the foundation of all science.) While standing in the wind, face the full force of the wind which is directly in front of the wind. Now, form both hands into a cup which represents a ½ round, cupped turbine vane with volume. Now, cross over your hands and form a blade with no volume representing a propeller driven wind mill. Which of the two forms catch more wind and has full thrust from the wind?
The first part of the equation is solved: The maximum amount of energy in the wind is directly in front of the wind and the best surface form to catch the wind and consequently, has more thrust and power, is a ½ round aluminum turbine vane with volume.
The second part of the equation is as logical. Which direction will the maximum wind catch area turbine vane turn? Naturally, the turbine vanes and rotor turn harmoniously in the same direction as the wind is blowing. This eliminates wind noise caused by turbulence. A propeller blade rotates sideways to the wind energy airstream which results in less power produced, noise from propeller turbulence and high stress on bearings and blades creating high maintenance cost. Propellers are so big; birds can’t see them and they have devastated wild bird populations. Check out the out of control wind propeller explosions on You Tube.
The third part of the equation is that the more cupped wind catch surface area that is directly in front of the wind, the more powerful the turbine. A single dimension propeller can only expand in size and power by increasing its’ diameter. The multidimensional Baker Wind Turbine can not only increase its’ power by increasing its’ diameter but can expand horizontally and add exponentially more wind catch surface area and power.
The Baker Wind Turbine has 144 cupped turbine vanes that are 3 inches wide (5 ½ inches of surface area). The 3 inch aluminum vanes give us 11 inches of weld at the cupped base. Each turbine vane has 1 1/2 sq. ft. of cupped surface area. This is important because the stress per catch area unit is low as apposed to a large catch area with a high stress attachment to the hub. No one turbine vane pulls by itself but pulls together with the other turbine vanes in a “gang”. This spreading of wind energy over the rotor maximizes the wind catch area and spins the rotor smoothly without vibration. Each turbine hub has 6 turbine vanes that are 6 ft. long. There are 24 hubs (6ft. wide) and there are 18 rows. Each row has 8 members that contain 48 lineal ft. of turbine vanes. At any given moment, the top section contains 108 sq. ft. of cupped wind catch surface area. As each row is assembled, they are progressively stepped which forms a horizontal twist. Twist is torque and torque is horsepower. The more twist, the more horsepower. Dividing the diameter into 18 lateral rows creates massive torque that is visible. For example take a wood screw and hold it sideways and turn it. You will notice that the screw is made up of one helix and 8 or more twists (or flights). The Baker Wind Turbine is Like the Archimedean screw but made up of 6 helixes with 8 twists which torque from right to left six feet. The overall dynamic of the Baker Wind Turbine is germane to High Pressure Turbine Dynamics but adapted to Low Pressure Turbine Dynamics which I am the inventor of and the Baker Wind Turbine is the test prototype. Just as Mr. Parsons’ invention of the high pressure steam turbine revolutionized steam power; the Baker Wind Turbine will revolutionize low pressure wind power.
The Baker Wind Turbine rotor has a lower surface to weight ratio than a propeller windmill so the rotor and shaft which weigh 660 lbs. begins turning on 1 or 2 miles an hour of wind and will operate smoothly and quietly in a 100 mile an hour wind at an estimated (920 R.P.M). High pressure steam and gas turbines operate at 20,000 to 50,000 R.P.M or higher; so in high winds the low pressure turbine dynamic is figuratively just loafing along. The Baker Wind Turbine not only has a wider range of operation but also produces more power at any given wind speed than a propeller driven wind mill and therefore the new turbine wind energy technology should rightfully outmode the old propeller driven windmill technology. The Baker Wind Turbine, like all major inventions, has a wide range of applications that will change roof top architecture, bridge design, ship design, high speed train (forced air) electric grid locomotives, forced air/ electric cars, parks, backyards, airports and all areas where the wind can be utilized in a natural or forced air environment. The turbine is enclosed so the housing can be easily painted to blend in with the surrounding area.
The last part of the equation is a little harder to grasp, even some engineers don’t get it straight. Those who defy convention and who can think individually in multidimensional terms get it right away.
First the single dimension. One assumption in Betz’ Law is that a solid wall is considered 100 % efficient in the wind and a propeller is considered 50% efficient because half of the wind flows through the propeller which causes the propeller to turn. So, 6 feet by 6 feet swath of airstream at, lets say, 10 pounds pressure per square foot (pounds is air speed and density) would give you 360 pounds of pressure thrust overall. A 50% efficient propeller would have 180 lbs. of thrust available. A three blade propeller with 5 ½ inch wide blades and 6 foot in diameter (4 1/2 sq. ft. surface area or 40.5 lbs thrust) produces but a fraction of one horsepower. The reason for this is a small surface area propeller rotates on a flat plane sideways to the energy source, has little torque, and is of a single dimension.
The multidimensional Baker Wind Turbine wind in-take is 6 feet high by 6 feet wide by 12 feet deep. The wind travels laterally across the turbine top section 12 feet to the other side which creates rotary power. The turbine rotor vanes are denser close to the center of the hub and wider at the tips and spaced such that the wind passes through the turbine to the other side. Again, hold up the wood screw. Notice by looking across the top half of the screw that there are air passages to the other side? Remember the Baker Wind Turbine has 6 helixes and 8 twists and the air passages move from right to left six feet? Now, look at the down wind side of the screw and you will notice that the flight is open and fanned out and is not drafted by the spiral? The turbine spirals leading edge is made up of many turbine vanes from many different rows so they do not draft one another. Of course, the leading edge of the opening is constantly changing as the rotor turns. At the apex of the turbine, as observed directly in front of the wind in-feed, the vanes form a continuous wall dimensionally. Because there are dimensional openings between the turbine vanes, and air is highly fluid, the wind powers all nine rows at any given moment from one side to the other. Each row is one dimension under wind power and there are 9 rows. There are 48 lineal feet of 3 inch cupped turbine vanes per row and 108 cupped sq. ft. total under power. If we figure out our total surface area in the top section it would contain 198 sq. ft. of surface area under wind power. At 10 pounds per sq. ft. that would be 1,980 pounds of thrust overall. That is 49 times more than the estimated efficiency of 40.5 pounds thrust for a single dimension propeller operating in the same 6 feet by 6 feet airstream! The Baker Wind Turbine is even more powerful than just converting speed and density of air into rotary power, the traveling torque creates even more horsepower, however, digging into traveling torque equations at this time is not necessary. My point has already been proven in science that Baker Low Pressure Turbine Dynamics is at least 49 times more powerful then a propeller driven wind mill dynamic and my 12 feet in diameter low pressure turbine proves it. That is why I built model #3 so that people could see the powerful turbine dynamic operate even though they do not understand how it works or all of the ramifications of it working. Now you know how it works and basically the breakthrough technology of Baker Low Pressure Turbine Dynamics. Did you get it? Or was it to much for your wee mind? For those who get it, read on. For those who don’t get it; drive down the road at 65 mph. and cup your hand into the wind and let it jerk your arm back (lever) and each time ask yourself “where is the power and energy in the wind”?
The reason the modern American Green Energy Economy is not moving forward is because independent scientist and individual inventors, like me, are without funding. The reason there is no funding is because the economic powers that be, the status quo, has snuffed any State or Federal funding programs for independent green energy inventors. Are you surprised there is no level ground? Do you know what scares the hell out of the multinational Big Oil and energy barons? The answer is the advancement of science with new inventions that they can’t control (their economy) that would outmode the use of fossil fuels for energy (their product). That is the cause of man made Global Warming.
Logically, one would think that the first government action would be to utilize our national talent by holding a national green energy science contest thereby acting free from Big Oil. I am not the only independent inventor; there would be thousands of qualified applicants with new concepts. The winner would receive a one million dollar reward to further develop the new green energy concept. Ten million a month could finance and develop ten new grass root industries employing thousands in green energy jobs. Out with the old and in with the new, let the best win in science and the lesser fold or be outmoded by something even better. That is fair competition and free enterprise. A modern American Main Street Capitalism based on a green energy economy would grow from the bottom up and not be dominated and controlled by multinational corporations from the top down. Great inventors were individuals not controlled universities; they should be funded as well.
Lawrence Baker
650-218-9434 windcatch@gmail.com