Free Markets, Free People

There is every reason to be skeptical of the science of “climate change” alarmists

Let’s make something clear here before we start.  The argument in science, about climate change, isn’t whether or not man is contributing to climate change – it’s whether what man is contributing makes a big difference in the climate (and should therefore be addressed) or an insignificant contribution to climate change (and therefore “remedies” which are likely economy wreckers should be foregone).  The former is the “alamrist” side.  The latter is the skeptical side.

The science of the situation, i.e. the data, seems to support the skeptical side.  So what you don’t want to fall into is the trap of agreeing that man is contributing nothing.  Just by living we contribute to the mix.  What skeptics are arguming is the contribution of man, in reality, is insignificant and doesn’t warrant huge costly taxes, significant change or monsterous government programs.  Skeptics offer that the atmosphere doesn’t react signficiantly to rising CO2 produced by man (and that seems to be the case).

Therefore when you hear all this nonsense about skeptics denying man’s contribution to climate change, it is just that – nonsense.  Every living creature contributes to the gasses which make up the atmosphere of our planet and some of those gasses do indeed have a role in climate.  To deny that is silly.  What we skeptics are saying is those contributions simply aren’t significant because their effect on climate is minimal and certainly nowhere near on par with natural events.  When the alarmist thow out numbers like “97% of scientistst agree man is contributing to climate change” it is a partial truth.  However, there’s a huge split among scientists as to how significant man’s contribution is to any climate change.  But alarmists never go there.

In fact, we’re just in the middle of the latest round of “catastrophe hype” that the media has been complicit in for years.  Whatever it takes to sell papers.  Remember:

“U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming,” said a Washington Post headline in 1971. “The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts.” The New York Times went one further, saying: “Climate Changes Called Ominous.” But it wasn’t just theory. “There is a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next hundred years.”

Oh, yeah.  I forgot about that.  Not to mention forgetting about how we’d all be starved to death by now because the population wasn’t sustainable and … well, you know them all.

Which brings us to the latest attempt by the alarmists to redefine both the “problem” and the skeptics.  Our buddy John Kerry in Indonesia over the weekend had this to say:

Kerry, who delivered the speech on Sunday in the capital, Jakarta, spoke critically about climate change sceptics adding that everyone and every country must take responsibility and act immediately.

“We simply don’t have time to let a few loud interest groups hijack the climate conversation,” he said, referring to what he called “big companies” that “don’t want to change and spend a lot of money” to act to reduce the risks.

He later singled out big oil and coal concerns as the primary offenders.

“The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand,” Kerry said.

Right.  Interestingly, Indonesia is huge coal producer.  Our boy Kerry knows how to pick ‘em.

Of course the science isn’t “unequivocal” where it counts.  I.e. what is driving climate change (you know, beside the big yellow thing that appears in the sky each day like magic but is, for the most part, roundly ignored by alarmists – no pun intended) is, well, many natural forces.  Our Earth has seen climate change for its entire existence.   We have two warm periods in our past which were warmer that the warmest period of modern history.  And we’re not warming now, despite increased CO2.  So, if one wants to really do science, i.e. demand “unequivocal” proof, one has every right to be skeptical of the current science being pushed by the alarmists.  Skepticism is the root of science.

And, of course, Kerry had to over dramatize the supposed problem in order to alarm the gullible even more:

John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, has stressed the importance of tackling climate change in a speech in Indonesia, saying that it may be the world’s “most fearsome” weapon of mass destruction.

Wow.  That’s just a …. silly comparison.

But alarmists seem to pay no attention to reality as they push their mantra.  For instance, Al Gore, Alarmist-in-Chief had this to say just a few days ago:

Earth’s ice-covered regions are melting. The vanishing of the Arctic ice cap is changing the heat absorption at the top of the world, and may be affecting the location of the Northern Hemisphere jet stream and storm tracks and slowing down the movement of storm systems. Meanwhile, the growing loss of ice in Antarctica and Greenland is accelerating sea level rise and threatening low-lying coastal cities and regions.

Not a word of that is true.  None.  The jet stream’s move south?

One of the Met Office’s most senior experts yesterday made a dramatic intervention in the climate change debate by insisting there is no link between the storms that have battered Britain and global warming. Mat Collins, a Professor in climate systems at Exeter University, said the storms have been driven by the jet stream – the high-speed current of air that girdles the globe – which has been ‘stuck’ further south than usual. Professor Collins told The Mail on Sunday: ‘There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge.’

Who are you going to believe?  Al Gore or Professor Collins?  Who has the real chops.  And note to that the Professor makes it clear that we don’t have the knowledge to make such a claim anyway.  Not that such an impediment of factual knowledge ever stopped Al Gore.

Antarctic ice?

Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world.

On Saturday, the ice extent reached 19.51 million square kilometers, according to data posted on the National Snow and Ice Data Center Web site.  That number bested record high levels set earlier this month and in 2012 (of 19.48 million square kilometers). Records date back to October 1978.

So what do real scientists note?

“This modeled Antarctic sea ice decrease in the last three decades is at odds with observations, which show a small yet statistically significant increase in sea ice extent,” says the study, led by Colorado State University atmospheric scientist Elizabeth Barnes.

You might also remember that 2013 was the year the sophisticated models the alarmists base their claims upon said that the Arctic would be ice free.  The gullible and true believers ate it up, and some even acted upon it.

Only six years ago, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013, citing a scientist in the US who claimed this was a ‘conservative’ forecast. Perhaps it was their confidence that led more than 20 yachts to try to sail the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to  the Pacific this summer. As of last week, all these vessels were stuck in the ice, some at the eastern end of the passage in Prince Regent Inlet, others further west at Cape Bathurst.

Shipping experts said the only way these vessels were likely to be freed was by the icebreakers of the Canadian coastguard. According to the official Canadian government website, the Northwest Passage has remained ice-bound and impassable  all summer.

D’oh!  I think they ought to bill the forecasters for the cost of rescuing the yachts, don’t you?

So, I don’t know, given all of that, maybe we ought to be skeptical of the fidelity of the models and the science?  You think?

I certainly do.

And Billy Nye?  You’re an engineer and an actor – not a climate scientist.  If you want to be among the alarmists, then be one.  But do us all a favor and do it quietly.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

47 Responses to There is every reason to be skeptical of the science of “climate change” alarmists

  • Kerry gets it right a couple of times, by accident:
    “We simply don’t have time to let a few loud interest groups hijack the climate conversation,”  I agree.  Stop listening to the Greenie Loonies.
    “The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand,”  Yes, but how can you make the warmists listen?
    It’s good to know he opposes the Obama administration.

    • All the logic in the world will never overcome the Progressives insatiable appetite for Money, Power and Societal Control.
      Facts don’t enter into that equation.

  • “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming,” said a Washington Post headline in 1971. “The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age …”

    There is every reason to believe that this statement has a higher likelihood of being correct than the “Arctic being ice free”.
    … and another thing … those “climate scientists” at the UK Met Office promised that snow would be just a memory.  Well, the tendonitis in my right arm says otherwise.

  • One thing to note is that our release on CO2 is not sufficient to increase temps significantly baised upon its contribution as a greenhouse gass. AGW is based upon the idea that there is positive feedback loops (“forcing”) that will significantly increase the warming . . .

    But there may be no net feedback, or more likely IMO, the feedback loops is negative. Stable systems feature negative feedback. What they argue, in effect, is that our climate is not stable. If that were true, I find it remarkable it hasn’t already ramped to an extreme, killing us all, millions of years ago.

    Those who remember when Climategate broke and Obama’s (IIRC) EPA head staged a greenhouse gass demo for Congress may want to think about that, and what this says about the little demo. Either the EPA head had no clue what the debate was about (i.e., incompetent) or else she was lying.

    • One thing to note is that our release on CO2 is not sufficient to increase temps significantly baised upon its contribution as a greenhouse gass. AGW is based upon the idea that there is positive feedback loops (“forcing”) that will significantly increase the warming . . .

      Quite! CO2 has a logarithmically inverse relationship to temperature rise.

    • The story in the early IPCC reports was that CO2 by itself couldn’t raise the temperatures all that much, but (as to save the day) the CO2 warming would trigger more water vapor in the air (it is a well known fact that water vapor is at least an order of magnitude better at warming than CO2).  This additional water vapor would trigger a “signature” event 18 km in the troposphere over the tropics.  It must be said .. a great hypothesis.
      The problem … to date this “signature” response 18 km in the troposphere over the tropics has never been observed .. even once.
      … tel me again, who is anti-science ?

  • A slight reprise…

    “We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts,” Kerry told the audience gathered at a U.S. Embassy-run American Center in a Jakarta shopping mall. “Nor should we allow any room for those who think that the costs associated with doing the right thing outweigh the benefits.”
    snip
    Secretary of State John Kerry said today in Indonesia that climate change is “the world’s largest weapon of mass destruction.”
    “In a sense, climate change can now be considered the world’s largest weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even, the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction,” said Kerry, according to the Associated Press.
    http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/climate-change-world-s-most-fearsome-weapon-of-mass-destruction-kerry-1.1688764#ixzz2tVKAX0yy

    Note the implications of this new meme:
    1. “weapons” are not force majeure or nature at work
    2. “weapons” are instruments in the hands of human actors
    3. “weapons” are created by intelligence, by design
    4. where you have some actor deploying a “weapon of mass destruction”, the world has the means to respond
    And, finally, it is one thing to be demagogued. It is simply insulting to be demagogued by an idiot.
     
    And I do NOT think this “weaponized” climate meme is simple stupidity.  I think it has an intent.
     

    • Oh it has intent … it is designed to appeal to those who don’t think.

      • Plus…it is a BIG click on the narrative ratchet.  “We kan’t talk to those people….they have a WMD pointed at us…whatever we have to do is self-defense.  An’….an’…for the chillren.”
         
        When I think that Lurch and Hagal are the point of the spear in terms of the civilian part of the defense of this nation…well…just damn

      • Slam the transmission into reverse, stomp on the gas, pop the clutch…and right back to the medieval era.

        • “and right back to the medieval era.”
           
          Well, for us surfs.   John plans on living up in the big house, occasionally he will come down amongst us for our quaint but ignorant festivals, fetes and green religious holidays to show us how good and kind a lord he is.

  • Your premise is utterly wrong, in two senses. You attempt to characterize the “argument in science” – but there really is not all that much of an argument, in science. The argument is amongst political operatives, and those who want to forestall any action because they fear for their personal financial interests.
    Secondly, your attempt to narrow the political argument to only the question of how much of an impact humans are having flies in the face of the overwhelming majority of the “intellectual’ output of the skeptic community. They argue vociferously against the notion that the data show any warming at all, against the notion that, if there is a warming, that it is in any way remarkable, against the notion that if it is remarkable, that humans have anything whatsoever to do with it.
    I guess that you slot in at the next level – that there is warming, it is remarkable, and humans have culpability, but its not really all that much.
    Further to your “left”, we find people like Bjorn Lomborg who believes that there is significant warming, it is caused primarily by humans and that we should do something about it, just not what the climate activists want us to do.
    I think that is a more honest assessment of the skeptic community. If you start out trying to define away the highly problematical parts of the skeptic community (over 90% of them), then why should anyone take you seriously, or finish your article. Sorry, but I haven’t.
    Beyond your mischaracterization of the skeptic community, your assessment of the data is wrong as well. The data supports the positions of the “alarmists” and that small fraction of skeptics that you represent.
    I think Lomborg has the only interesting, non-”alarmist” position. There should be  a vigorous debate about what exactly to do. But that debate will not happen unless people like you have the courage to face the music.

    • Beyond your mischaracterization of the skeptic community….

      When the alarmists call any skepticism of the most catastrophic predictions “denialism”, comparing anyone not marching in lockstep as being as bad, or worse, than a Holocaust denier, and even make snuff porn films about blowing up children and others who don’t get on board the 10:10 effort to “save the earth”, you cannot honestly believe that anyone mischaracterizes the non-alarmist viewpoints worse than alarmists—particularly politicians and celebrity big-mouths.

      The data supports the positions of the ‘alarmists’ ….

      Not lately.  Besides, your statement is far too general to be meaningful. Which data? Which positions? Which alarmists?  Because many predictions of the past have come and gone without coming true. And, alarmist predictions are sometimes like fortune cookies, sometimes like psychics who make predictions about events beyond their lifetimes, and sometimes like bird shot shotgun blasts (make enough predictions and something will get close enough to measured data to claim accuracy).
      The real sticking point is that if AGW is a significant contribution, which will result in major catastrophes, then in order to avoid the catastrophe, human industry must be scaled back to a fraction of today’s output. Given China, India, et al., who are not going to stop their growth or significantly cut their emissions (oh, some of them will obviously lie, just like the communists did in the past to meet quotas), so that puts the onus on the EU, the US, and any other nations the alarmists can sucker into committing economic suicide.
      Unless you have a Mr. Fission ready to go in the next few years, the fact is that all of the recycling, “green energy” boondoggles and carpet baggers, huge taxation, etc. will not alter the course of climate, one way or the other.  But, it will impoverish most of the First World (at least, the suckers who allow it) and retard the progress of civilization.
      If, on the other hand, the alarmists are wrong in their assertion of how much anthropogenic factors contribute to global warming, then whether we make drastic cuts or keep using fossil fuels at an increasing rate, the climate will simply warm or cool pretty much the same amount, either way.
      Obviously, the gambler puts his money on doing nothing which is economically damaging, and then dealing with the consequences, if they happen. Because if you destroy most of the “dirty” industry, putting people back into pre-Industrial filth and squalor, how will you pay for projects like flood abatement (if that ever becomes necessary)? You’ll have poor, starving people, a few wealthy elites living in green zones, and no possible way to pay for dealing with problems.
      But before we even get to that point, I reject the socialist-styled “solutions” as ethically abominable, trampling on the property rights of individuals.

    • “there should be  a vigorous debate”
      Okay…we say do nothing other than adapt.
      What’s the other side of the debate want?  To stop what we’re (anthropogenic) doing so we don’t have to adapt, yes?
      Okay, fine.
      Who do we restrict, what do we restrict, how do we enforce it?
      When do we loosen up on the reins or tighten them?  How will we KNOW if the restrictions are working, what is the objective measure?
      (Carbon credits isn’t an answer, it’s an economic scheme for enriching the already rich and transferring wealth from the 1st world to the various ‘other’ worlds)
      All I see is “WE MUST DO SOMETHING”, but what must be done, what will be done, and how it will be done are always fuzzy and feel good unrealistic economic and social suggestions.   Yet the result of these vague suggestions entail fundamentally re-ordering society and our economies as if the money and material is stockpiled somewhere and we only have to move it from point a to point b, think happy green earth thoughts, acknowledge our excesses, bow three times to Gaia, and wait for the miracle of warming cessation to occur.
       
      Take a gander at the implementation of ObamaCare and scale it up to a global effort.
       
      And people wonder why some of us think warmists are a religious cult?

      • Okay…we say do nothing other than adapt.

        You say “we”. Well, I won’t speak for all skeptics. Instead, I’ll speak for skeptics, moderates, alarmists, and ignoramuses. If political power and profit from radical authoritarian alarmist control were removed from the table, then we would all agree that adaptation is the only plan which makes sense. So, I reject your implication that it is (only) a position for skeptics.

        • On behalf of ignoramuses all over the plant…
          Amain.

        • Well, I was just suggesting the ‘other half’ of the debate.  You know, the half that the warmists are going to, in the end, refer to as evolutionary dead-end flat earthers who should, as the video indicates, be blown up or otherwise suffer directly and NOW for their denial.
          You’re bringing in all manner of sides on the debate. I was, in a rare spate of brevity, assuming there were only two sides, deniers and believers.

          • I’m saying that even true believers in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming should agree that adaptation is the only sensible approach. The alarmists should reject radical political controls, because people will need major technological productive capacity to adapt to significant warming (if it happens).
            If they give the keys to the kingdom to the politicians, those corrupt officials will enrich their cronies and do little more than symbolic actions, or, even worse, do stupid, wasteful things which don’t work towards the goal of reduction in emissions.  If they use a market approach and focus on developing new technologies and other methods of tackling the problems which benefit the individual, they have the best chance for success.  And, if they don’t engage in reckless punishment of the “bad guys”, for some cheap emotional satisfaction, but appreciate that the “bad guys” are going to be the ones who make it possible to adapt in the future, they will look for ways to instead persuade them with appeals to efficiency, for example.
            But we know that the watermelons and their fellow travelers and useful idiots are all about revenge and power.

      • What’s the other side of the debate want?

        Political power, grant money, meaningless smug self-satisfaction.
        The hard core activists, to include politicians, do not want to do what it would take to stop global warming, if we assume that the catastrophic alarmists are accurate. They want to scare the people into giving up their rights so they have power. They want to implement radical authoritarian economic control which conveniently mirrors the plans of those who follow Marxist ideologies (however they label themselves). The more astute know that they won’t “save the earth”, but they will stick it to Big Oil, Big Coal, and rich Westerners, to even things out by making everyone equally poor around the world. Then, when the temperatures keep rising anyway (because China, India, Russia, et al. give the greenies the middle finger), no one will have enough money or technological productive capacity to accomplish effective adaptation, like building dikes and whatnot.
        But, the commies will have their power and get their revenge, in the short term.

    • Heh. The major argument is between the failed models and the actual climate.

      The fundamental hitch of AGW is that it is based on the idea I mentioned above, that the climate will respond to increased CO2 with positive feedback. Otherwise, due to the direct contribution of CO2, the warming will be insignificant.

      Based upon the lack of recent warming, the case for positive feedback is looking very weak.

      • In nearly all complex natural systems, negative feedbacks dominate. Hence, there are cycles. The myth of the “runaway warming” or the “tipping point” is a scare tactic, which is directly refuted by the historical record. If the climate of this vast world were so fragile that a few degrees of warming caused an irreversible positive feedback meltdown scenario, it would have already happened, and the world’s climate would have either gone to the extreme of heat or cold billions of years ago.
        So, the alarmists bake in assumptions of positive feedbacks and ignore or minimize negative feedbacks. Otherwise, they don’t get the big headlines.

  • Somehow the left never, ever wants to talk about the details of those catastrophist climate models, or that those models’ predictions have generally been at variance with actual events. Nor are they interested in looking at models that are based on different assumptions, but don’t suggest impending catastrophe.
     
    Not surprising. First, model have math in them. Leftists hate math. Second, they excel at ignoring evidence that goes against their plans to boss everyone else around.

    • …they excel at ignoring evidence that goes against their plans to boss everyone else around.

      While getting them their cheap, false moral superiority.  Remember…it’s a binary thang.  Like epoxy!

    • Oh, they LOVE math…the part that is all based on assumptions, calculated to obfuscate the models fatal flaws. They can sorta do arithmetic, but not MATH.

    • Climate is measured in 30 year chunks of time.
      How long have we had good instruments? 150 years maybe.
      So, that is 5 data points.
      Mention this to a semi-numerate alarmist and they go ballistic…one guy even told me I was lying about 30 years being the common unit of climate.
      When I pointed out the IPCC agrees with me, he was not happy.
      I really do not get how such a person can do that instead of taking a moment to say “hmmmmm.”
      There are many other arguments against AGW, or doing anything about it, at least until we know more.
      A sensible program would be to do additional good research before making any actual policy.
      The fact is that if CO2 is indeed a major culprit the actual Co2 emissions that needed to be reduced were in the past. Right now, each doubling is larger and larger in absolute terms so as to make reducing emissions absurd.
      Of course, if you did want to do so, you would have spent the stimulus on nuclear power plants and promote electrics cars…we only did half of that, and not the half that needs to come first.
       

      • “I really do not get how such a person can do that instead of taking a moment to say “hmmmmm.”
        - think of it as if you just told a Catholic church official from round 1615 that Copernicus had it right.   Zealots don’t do “hmmmmmmm”, they do “DIE HERETIC!  YOU WILL BE DAMNED FOR SPREADING THESE LIES!”

  • Of course, there is a proper comparison between WMDs and AGW.  Both are based on an international consensus, and we know how well that worked out in Iraq.

  • And Billy Nye?  You’re an engineer and an actor – not a climate scientist.

     
    Bill Nye is not the problem.  He’s a talking head with a particular schtick looking for work and going with what pays.  The problem is that the other scientists are more like Bill Nye, looking for work and willing to support any viewpoint that has a paycheck.  People need to wake up from the idea they are on altruistic quests for the truth.  They probably would like to think they are helping to contribute to the truth, but ultimately a guy’s gotta eat.  And guess where the money is?

  • His whole pitch was probably designed to motivate them to be global warming ‘victims’ of Western Consumption.  And to pave the way for a global carbon tax.  If you can’t tax the consumers, tax the producer or have them collect it and split the reward.  A globally mandated anti-competitive price increase.

  • I was taught that the composition of gases in the Earth’s atmosphere is: 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen and 1% other gases.

    Given that C02 is one of the other gases, has the composition of the atmosphere changed significantly since man determined the means to measure it?  It strikes me that in order for gases to effect the climate, the ratio of those gases must alter.  If the ratio is not altering…….

  • As someone mentioned above, we have been collecting data for around 150 years. The earth is 4.54 billion years old, I don’t want to try and do t he math on what percentage of earths life span that is.
     
    The question that never gets answered and very seldom asked is: What is the ideal temperature for the earth? The only answer I have ever heard is: Well, there are many variables that go into that and it’s very hard to figure out. Okay, they can “figure out” that man is making the earth hotter, btw, it’s less than 1 degree Celsius warmer now than when data started being collected, but they can’t figure out what the ideal temp. for the earth is. All these findings are about what the best temperature for MAN is. If, as we all believe, climate is cyclical, this cycle could be taking us to the temperatures during the Jurassic, or during the ice age.
    Here’s what it comes down to, and I’ve noticed it in every field of science as of late, people come up with a theory, find everything they can to prove that theory and then forget the other side of science, trying to disprove your own theory.  It’s about name recognition, not science. It’s about “consensus” not the pursuit of the truth. And finally, it’s about the money, just follow  the money.
     

    • The ideal temperature is whatever the person you’re talking to had for the majority of their childhood.   We’re not allowed to upset the ‘balance’ by changing what they are accustomed to, or whatever mythical standard their whiny parents, teachers and classmates told them they were entitled to.

      • And that’s the point. They are complaining that man is changing the climate, while at the same time putting a man made solution with their own numbers on it. It makes no sense, but the keep piling on with it, and people keep swallowing it  up, because it is much easier to listen than it is to learn.

        • Because none of them are thinking critically.   They want to feel good, they want to agree with all the deep thinkers in Hollywood and in the Critical Renaissance Women Studies program.
           
          They expect the quality of their life (like their climate) to remain the same even as they propose to change it’s most fundamental structures in providing them with surfeit energy for their phones, cars, refrigerators, elevators, etc.
          They don’t bother to think there is no zero tradeoff for what they’re after.
           
          Want to hear them howl louder than they do over global warming?  Start taking away all the civilization they have that uses energy produced by creating carbon emissions.  Start telling them they can’t have AC, TV, etc, any time, at the flick of a wall switch, the push of a button or the turn of a key.
          They’re not ready for the “Amish Paradise” they’re going to achieve with their carbon cutting goal (with apologies to the Amish of course).
           

  • http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/371364/obama-lauds-fuel-efficient-super-truck-andrew-johnson
    Sorry, our President is an idiot as pertains to anything practical.
    There is no way fleet trucks increased mileage by 75%, all things being equal (i.e. fleet speeds over routes, etc.)
    Truckers fight and upgrade for 3 or 4% increases in mileage.

    • Here’s the scoop on that -
      Between Denton and Vernon Texas.    Yes, the mountainous and ultra hilly terrain between Vernon and Denton.
      Why not Sweetwater to Odessa.   Color me not as impressed as I was when I read the second paragraph.
      I admit, a lot of the country is kinda flat…..and a whole lot of it ain’t.
      I’d like to see the numbers that went into the claim there is, on average, a projected $27,000 saving per truck on vehicles traveling 120,000/year.
       

    • Rises 4.23 feet/mile between Denton (625 ft at the airport) and Vernon (1265 ft at the airport), for a grade of .080 across 151 miles.
      Now I won’t tell you it’s completely FLAT between those two points….from what I recall, it’s just mostly flat.

    • Yeah.  It’s just hype, connived in by Pete, Cummins, and Uncle Mandate.
      It is also pretty much complete bullshit.  They are comparing a 2014 concept truck to a 2009 fleet.  Plus, they run loaded both ways, which Safeway trucks just cannot (since they are carrying stuff to stores outbound; if they are lucky, they can pick up something on the way back, but that is dubious.)
      And NOTHING is free in engineering.  That “Super Truck” is light by virtue of a lot of investment in materials AND it is questionable just how durable it might be.
      PLUS, this is all about plain-jane vans and reefers…which are a fraction of the U.S. fleet.  The stuff slathered on the “Super Truck” just won’t apply to flats and other forms.

      • ” Plus, they run loaded both ways, which Safeway trucks just cannot”   Waaaaaht?    They could be moving undocumented immigrants from Lewisville through to Wichita Falls!
         
        It’s like carrying the Irish as ballast to New Orleans.

  • Mr Miliband says: “This winter is a one-in-250-year event” (yet it’s nothing like as wet as 1929-30 if you count the whole of England and Wales, let alone Britain) and that “the science is clear”. The chief scientist of the Met Office, Dame Julia Slingo, tells us “all the evidence” suggests that climate change is contributing to this winter’s wetness. (Why, then, did she allow the Met Office to forecast in November that a dry winter was almost twice as likely as a wet winter?) Lord Stern, an economist, claimed that the recent weather is evidence “we are already experiencing the impact of climate change”.
    http://www.steynonline.com/6105/amphibious-albion
    You should read the whole thing.

  • Oh, and by the way, the ‘experts’ predicted this winter would be ‘above normal’ temperatures…..by their own measure, they’re just slightly better than monkeys throwing darts.
     
    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-18/the-official-forecast-of-the-u-dot-s-dot-government-never-saw-this-winter-coming

  • In a Feb. 16 speech in Indonesia, Secretary of State John Kerry assailed climate-change skeptics as members of the “Flat Earth Society” for doubting the reality of catastrophic climate change. He said, “We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists” and “extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts.”
    But who are the Flat Earthers, and who is ignoring the scientific facts? In ancient times, the notion of a flat Earth was the scientific consensus, and it was only a minority who dared question this belief. We are among today’s scientists who are skeptical about the so-called consensus on climate change. Does that make us modern-day Flat Earthers, as Mr. Kerry suggests, or are we among those who defy the prevailing wisdom to declare that the world is round?

    • To accuse people who react with skepticism of being “anti-Science” is an inversion of reality.
      Skepticism is one of the foundations of the scientific method of inquiry.
      Popularity, orthodoxy, appeal to authority, censorship, propaganda, hiding inconvenient facts (“hide the decline”), non-transparency, THESE are all anti-Science. And, the alarmist crowd employs such tactics with no shame.  Centuries from now, historians will discuss the silly global warming hysteria and the resulting economic ruination around the turn of the millennium, in the way that we discuss medieval panics over witches or the rampant disingenuous praise for authoritarian regimes by the captive citizenry.  A few wise people in those future days might comment on how their contemporaries who are ice age alarmists are just like the warmists, but they will be shouted down by the “experts” who declare that a looming ice age is “settled science” and demand that politicians be given the power to collect taxes to pay for releasing methane hydrates to avert runaway cooling.