Science and Politics do not mix well most of the time

Via powerline: "William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton and former head of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Research, unloads on the charlatans who peddle the anthropogenic global warming theory:

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that's a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult. ... All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide." ...

Happer said he is dismayed by the politicization of the issue and believes the community of climate change scientists has become a veritable "religious cult," noting that nobody understands or questions any of the science.

He noted in an interview that in the past decade, despite what he called "alarmist" claims, there has not only not been warming, there has in fact been global cooling. He added that climate change scientists are unable to use models to either predict the future or accurately model past events.

"There was a baseball sage who said prediction is hard, especially of the future, but the implication was that you could look at the past and at least second-guess the past," Happer explained. "They can't even do that." ...

"[Climate change theory has] been extremely bad for science. It's going to give science a really bad name in the future," he said. "I think science is one of the great triumphs of humankind, and I hate to see it dragged through the mud in an episode like this."

Someday, books will be written about how a cabal of politically motivated and economically self-interested politicians and scientists nearly bamboozled the public into dismantling the economies of the developed world."

Maybe books will be written, but I doubt you'll see them on the NYT bestseller list no matter what (hey - you don't see the Bible on that list, now do you? The most distributed book in history to this day). In any case, about those computer 'models:' THEY ARE NOT MODELS! They cannot predict the future nor reconstruct the past. They are scenarios. No different than a bunch of guys hanging around the water cooler coming up with "what if" scenarios. The MSM doesn't know the difference.

In any case, modeling the Earth surface to upper hemisphere is such a complex system that no one knows exactly what variables to put in should anyone come up with an actual 'model.' It's not the lack of computing power, it's a lack of scientific knowledge to feed into the computers. Plus, chaos theory will always be against long term predictions of such complex systems. The more variables there are, the more any possible model will suffer predicting farther into the future. So forget these "this is what will happen in 50 years" scenarios being trotted out there by a biased media.

Isn't it funny that the solution to global warming, poverty, etc. seems to always be the same thing: socialism/communism (I put them together because the end result is the same (the total and systematic destruction of ALL LIFE on Arrakis). the only difference is how each is installed. The latter by physical power of the state, the former by the vote of the people).

Cape Wind Clears Hurdle

Via the Volokh Conspiracy:

"Yesterday the Minerals Management Service (MMS) released its final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed Cape Wind offshore wind power development in Massachusetts, concluding that the project will have no significant negative environmental consequences. Release of the final EIS clears the way for the MMS to lease a portion of Nantucket Sound to Cape Wind, but it hardly makes the project a done deal. Cape Wind will still need to obtain additional permits and clear additional reviews from the Federal Aviation Administration and U.S. Coast Guard. Project opponents also promised litigation and other efforts to prevent the erection of wind turbines in the Sound. Senator Kennedy, for one, voiced his continued opposition and predicted any lease to Cape Wind would be overturned.

The Cape Wind experience illustrates how existing regulatory regimes are not particularly welcoming to alternative energy development. MMS offshore lease regulations, for instance, were designed for offshore oil and gas development, not windfarms. Cape Wind has had to face numerous regulatory reviews and overlapping requirements at various levels of government. If wind power and other alternative energy sources are to ever make a significant and cost-justified contribution to the nation's energy supply, the regulatory thicket will need to be cleared. The Bush Administration showed little interest in such an undertaking, despite its stated commitment to less onerous regulation and technological innovation. Perhaps the Obama Administration will recognize the need for innovation-enhancing regulatory
reforms."

The reason cape wind has made news at all is that all the rich folk over by the cape oppose it in what we true environmentalists call NIMBYism. (NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard) Amongst the elite opposing the project is the Kennedy family. Every member. All of 'em. Not just Ted Kennedy (anything in water tends not to mix with Ted for some reason). But Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also, who holds himself up as a world-leading environmentalist/activist. If you follow the link, you'll see RFK Jrs argument has mostly to do with the view out his window and other conveniences. But that's neither here nor there.

For my part, I hope that the Cape Wind project ends up getting built. As I teach in my classes, offshore installation is perhaps the best possible source of 24/7/365 wind power. Even here in Michigan the best possible wind areas are offshore (all along the western edge of the state, and the Lake Superior area of the Upper Peninsula). With wind turbines continually getting bigger, more efficient and quieter, it is an excellent source of power (note I didn't call it 'clean power' or 'green power' as there are plenty of environmental consequences in constructing these behemoths, but perhaps it's best to save that for a post in itself). In addition, I never understood the NIMBYs opposition to wind turbines. If you ever get a chance to see one up close, do so. They are massive and quite impressive. Always remind me of Jodie Foster looking down from a walkway upon "the machine' in the movie Contact (hit the youtube link here and go to the 6:55 mark). Just awesome and impressive as all heck. If I could I'd get a small one in my back yard (the homeowners association and township would surely be against it... Sigh...).

It's Really, Really Cold Out There!

Related to my earlier post. "2008 is being recorded by many as the year when global warming theory died. " I wouldn't hold my breath just yet. The narrative has already morphed from global warming to 'climate change.' Since climate has always changed, these fear mongers will be in business for the foreseeable future.

Battle back against bitter cold

FIGHT! FIGHT WITH ME!!! The arctic thing I mentioned this morning. I wonder why they didn't mention anything about earring and other jewelry?

Arctic air coming to metro Detroit

"Arctic air will be filtering in throughout the day, according to National Weather Service meteorologist Steve Considine."

I blame global warming.

Tapping the Detroit River for Alternative Energy

From the pages of the Ivory Tower: "U-M to tap Detroit River's current to create energy." "This is VIVACE, a device to harness energy in slow-moving water currents across the globe and turn it into electricity. VIVACE, which mimics the way fish swim in currents, is to debut next year in the Detroit River, powering the light for a new wharf between Hart Plaza and the Renaissance Center." "...It's one of a handful of new techniques -- the first in more than 100 years -- to use water to create clean, renewable energy." (emphasis mine)

My take on this: All of these people need to let the public know the truth - "clean" energy is a myth. There is cleaner energy, but nothing is 100% clean (the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics forbids it). As nice as this idea sounds on paper, these devices will have to be manufactured, which itself is inherently non-clean, non-green. So there's that. Why do these reports always ignore the energy and materials it takes to build these devices? Why not look at the big picture - the entire life cycle of the device? How much energy do we get out versus how much energy (and chemicals, materials, waste, etc.) went in? And then look at the ratio.

Now onto the technique here (you can see a picture of the cylinder array here), which is a novel one where upright cylinders in water sway back and forth in a slow-moving current (due to vortex shedding on the sides of the cylinders such as happens in air. You can see a computer-simulated visual here. This shedding induced vibrations, or the swaying back-and-forth of the cylinder). However, when I think of anything swaying back and forth in a repetetive, oscillatory manner, fatigue failure comes to mind. How long will these devices last? They will need maintenance, as the article indicates. Plus there's the biofouling factor in the Detroit river (versus clean laboratory water - albeit I'm sure the researchers took this into account). I doubt the claim in the article that they will be cheaper than wind power (solar maybe). In any case, it will be interesting to see the results from the initial trial, especially on the economic feasibility front.

Even more on the environmental crime known as "Googling"

Hoaxing Google Search Power Consumption (via conservativegrapevine): "My antenna went up immediately. I've done some implementation research on servers precisely to discover what I could expect in the way of performance and power consumption, and the number appeared grossly inflated." And this: "The reality is that Google and other internet businesses that serve content are among the most efficient consumers of electricity in the context of value delivered that there has ever been on the face of the earth. If you really want to save energy--stop printing newspapers." Good idea I'd say.

More on the environmental crime known as "Googling"

From my post yesterday here, Redstate has a followup: "Make sure the next time you run a Google search (or a hundred of them), you face the East, beg forgiveness from Gaia, and offer Algore a tithe of at least half your salary to offset the damage you’re doing to this planet."

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

From Pravda: "The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science." This ought to be a real blow to the Gorebal warming alarmists who have turned a blind eye to this planet's climate history. Funny how every coming potential catastrophe has the same solution: disarm capitalism, raise taxes, put as many as possible under the thumb of government...

UPDATE: And don't wear earrings if you're in Slovenia. Hmmmm. Makes sense considering piercing act like extended surfaces (fins) enhancing heat transfer. They also have a much higher thermal capacitance (they'll stay hot or cold longer) than the ear (or nose) that they're attached to.

UPDATE#2: Maybe you shouldn't wear piercing in Alaska either. (HT: drudge)

Environmentalists cannot surf the net?

Via the drudgereport. Googling bad for the environment! http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5489134.ece
So if I quit drinking tea can I Google then?