Sunday Quote of the Day
“…a sophistical rhetorician inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity.” Benjamin Disraeli
George Will advises the Obama campaign [or is it cam”pain.”]
Add comment August 3rd, 2008
Saturday Beer
Update: Sunday August 3rd Beer Run
Schlitz is making a comeback. But why? Because it is the beer that made Milwaukee famous!
I always thought that it was Laverne and Shirley!
But if they can resurrect Pabst Blue Ribbon, why not Schlitz? Perhaps it “is the change I have been waiting for?” More likely it is that when I am out of Schlitz, I am out of beer. So I am off to buy some for the taste test. Stay tuned for the results.
*PBR funny!
Add comment August 2nd, 2008
Sunday Letter of the Day
“When facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?”
Lord Keynes
The American Physical Scientists recently published a paper by Viscount Monckton that challenges the United Nation’s IPCC’s opinions on climate change.This peer reviewed paper was needlessly, but understandably, subject to petty academics, not to mention the frivilous warblings of the activists interested in denying scientic skepticism.
Here also is an Editor’s Note from the APS.
Viscount Monckton parries:
9 July 2008
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Carie, Rannoch, PH17 2QJ, UK
monckton@mail.comArthur Bienenstock, Esq., Ph.D.,
President, American Physical Society,
Wallenberg Hall, 450 Serra Mall, Bldg 160,
Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA 94305.By email to artieb@slac.stanford.edu
Dear Dr. Bienenstock,
Physics and Society
The editors of Physics and Society, a newsletter of the American Physical Society, invited me to submit a paper for their July 2008 edition explaining why I considered that the warming that might be expected from anthropogenic enrichment of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide might be significantly less than the IPCC imagines.
I very much appreciated this courteous offer, and submitted a paper. The commissioning editor referred it to his colleague, who subjected it to a thorough and competent scientific review. I was delighted to accede to all of the reviewer’s requests for revision (see the attached reconciliation sheet). Most revisions were intended to clarify for physicists who were not climatologists the method by which the IPCC evaluates climate sensitivity - a method which the IPCC does not itself clearly or fully explain. The paper was duly published, immediately after a paper by other authors setting out the IPCC’s viewpoint. Some days later, however, without my knowledge or consent, the following appeared, in red, above the text of my paper as published on the website of Physics and Society:
“The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Itsconclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Societydisagrees with this article’s conclusions.”
This seems discourteous. I had been invited to submit the paper; I had submitted it; an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically reviewed it in meticulous detail; I had revised it at all points requested, and in the manner requested; the editors had accepted and published the reviewed and revised draft (some 3000 words longer than
the original) and I had expended considerable labor, without having been offered or having requested any honorarium.Please either remove the offending red-flag text at once or let me have the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to it who considered my paper before the Council ordered the offending text to be posted above my paper; a copy of this rapporteur’s findings and ratio decidendi; the date of the Council meeting at which the findings were presented; a copy of the minutes of the discussion; and a copy of the text of the Council’s decision, together with the names of those present at the meeting. If the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had; secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the “overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community”; and, tertio, that “The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions”? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific
grounds (if any)?Having regard to the circumstances, surely the Council owes me an apology?
Yours truly,
THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY
The American Thinker opines as well.
Oh, and we’ve seen so much coverage of this in the mainstream press which has set its agenda clearly against discussion and debate of the topic. And yet those who seek more information that even mildly contradicts or expresses a skeptical view of the “accepted wisdom” is shouted down as being in denial.
Of course, it is the opposite that is true. The march to consensus in climate ideology, as if anything so absurd could actually exist, denies debate, discussion and dismisses anything but cooperation and agreement with their views.
The very disclaimer from the APS aptly demonstrates true denial:
“The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.“
This isn’t rationale consideration. Dismissing a paper it’s own group requested from Viscount Monckton in 2 sentences, without any discussion of the facts of the disagreement represents a stone wall.
I’ll let Dr. David Evans speak to the APS’s denial and give him full credit for the Lord Keynes quote which I used at the beginning of this post:
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
Add comment July 20th, 2008
Wimbeldon 2008
Simply the best tennis match ‘evah!’
Update: Wimbeldon Nostalgia [I can’t resist!]
Add comment July 6th, 2008
Who Do you Trust?
Thanks to the Gallup organization and …
ht: The all powerfull OZ; er, I mean SDA [Small Dead Animals]
Add comment July 5th, 2008
“Independence” Picture of the Day
Update: July 5, 2008 - In case the picture left you guessing. President John F. Kennedy visited west Berlin to give a “liberating” speech.
Add comment July 4th, 2008
Drilling for Oil and NAFTA
For political energy opinions, the recent spate of media and political attention driven by $4.00 per gallon gasoline is a proven gusher of shrillness!
But facts are stubborn things. For Democrats, who tend to look at Canada as refuge from conservative storms, Canada, the leading source of imported energy for the US economy, is drilling for oil in pristine wilderness, on the oceans, in the north and soon, in the rich Bakken oil formation that is going to make both Saskatchewan and North Dakota very wealthy!
So my question to the Democrats: Why does oil “makes you sick” when you are only too happy to buy Canadian energy?
And Republicans policies are only recently becoming enlightened after years of stasis with the growth of the dependence on imported oil an accepted, rather than challenged fact.
I guess the supplementary question is if Canada, a so-called country of social democrats is reaping profound prosperity and energy independence from fossil fuels, why deny an increase in drilling for oil in your own country?
And if that energy flows through to the US enabled by NAFTA, the free trade deal your supporters love to hate [mind you, they seem to “hate ‘em all!], it ill behooves any political candidate to pander to voters by bashing the leading source of energy.
The red blotch represents England’s size; the blue blotch is the size and location of Bakken.
Add comment July 4th, 2008