How Bad Science Becomes Common Knowledge: Two Case Studies (solar and climate change)

By Eric Dennis -- January 17, 2012 29 Comments
“When we hear of vast numbers of scientists endorsing Michael Mann’s famous ‘hockey stick’ graph… What we don’t hear is that the vast, vast majority of them never sought access to the specific data and algorithms claimed to support it (much of which was actively withheld from the scientific community at large). They did not independently evaluate either Mann’s claims or the specific, technical objections raised against them by a few critics who were able to wrest those data and algorithms from Mann’s clenched fist over a period of years. Neither had the scientific media performed any independent, critical review when reporting on such issues for over a decade, most of them simply not being equipped to do so.”
To read the popular media’s account of climate science, it is a certainty that burning fossil fuels is causing an unprecedented and catastrophic warming of the planet.
Continue Reading

Energy Free-Market Megatrend: George Will Speaks

By Robert Bradley Jr. -- January 12, 2012 8 Comments

George Will, the masterful voice of intellectual conservatism (and almost libertarianism), turned to energy in a recent Washington Post column. In Ringing in a Conservative Year (December 30), Will considered the underlying economic reality that will help shape 2012 politics. Obama or not, Will sees technological/economic trends as powerful if not controlling.

Will’s essay draws upon a startling fact: “In 2011, for the first time in 62 years, America was a net exporter of petroleum products.”

He continues with a play off of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto:

For the indefinite future, a specter is haunting progressivism, the specter of abundance. Because progressivism exists to justify a few people bossing around most people and because progressives believe that only government’s energy should flow unimpeded, they crave energy scarcities as an excuse for rationing — by them — that produces ever-more-minute government supervision of Americans’ behavior.

Continue Reading

Scientific Communication: Preach or Engage? (Judith Curry vs. AGU climate bias)

By Chip Knappenberger -- December 16, 2011 7 Comments

“Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is going to cost a lot (both in terms of dollars and effort), and it is going to produce few if any demonstrable climate results for decades to come (if ever).” 

The scientific community—or especially that part of it which holds the opinion that not enough is being done to mitigate potential climate change—is struggling with why the general public (and hence policymakers) are not heeding their call to action on global warming.

In a recent post, I pointed to one reason: the fast diminishing role that any U.S.-side mitigation would have in curbing greenhouse gas emissions enough to measurably affect global climate. This is a classic bang-for-the-buck evaluation. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is going to cost a lot (both in terms of dollars and effort), and it is going to produce few if any demonstrable climate results for decades to come (if ever).…

Continue Reading

Anatomy of a Debate: Rejecting Renewable Energy at THE ECONOMIST (Part II)

By Jon Boone -- December 14, 2011 5 Comments

“This house believes that subsidizing renewable energy is a good way to wean the world off fossil fuels.”

– ECONOMIST magazine, Online debate, November 8–18, 2011

Yesterday we reviewed the surprising rebuke of renewable energy–and the underlying premise that fossil fuels were inherently unsustainable–by an international voting audience.

Today we revisit the essential question: Can renewable energy really help ‘wean the world off fossil fuels’?

Although the affirmative’s Matthias Fripp, moderator James Astill, and their colleagues evaded this fundamental question, here is a sampling of oft-heard rationales, most if not all of which were implicit in Astill’s comments and final announcement. Windpower (providing more than 75% of any politically correct renewable portfolio), we are told, helps to:

(a) Reduce reliance on foreign oil;

(b) Substitute for coal;

(c) Complement the fuels used in our electricity generation portfolios;

(d) Provide a fair return to wind investors while making them feel good about helping save the world;

(e) Spawn discretionary revenues to help bootstrap our economic doldrums;

f) Create new jobs;

(g) Establish leadership credentials to encourage the rest of the world to follow our example; and

(h) Serve as a bridge to newer, better technologies in some more enlightened future.

Continue Reading

Anatomy of a Debate: Rejecting Renewable Energy at ECONOMIST Magazine (Part I)

By Jon Boone -- December 13, 2011 4 Comments Continue Reading

The Perils of the Mixed Economy: Rejecting 'Starter Regulation'

By Robert Bradley Jr. -- December 9, 2011 1 Comment Continue Reading

Climategate 1.0/2.0 Did Not Begin With Climate: Revisiting Neo-Malthusian Intolerance

By Robert Bradley Jr. -- November 29, 2011 4 Comments Continue Reading

Chevron CEO: "The Imperative of Affordable Energy" (Moral substance trumps 'green' form)

By Robert Bradley Jr. -- November 25, 2011 2 Comments Continue Reading

ECONOMIST Debate on Renewable Energy (Part II: Climate Alarmism vs. the Environment)

By Robert Bradley Jr. -- November 11, 2011 7 Comments Continue Reading

ECONOMIST Debate on Renewable Energy (Part I: W. S. Jevons Lives!)

By Robert Bradley Jr. -- November 9, 2011 11 Comments Continue Reading