Thursday, December 8, 2016

'WE'VE GOT TO BACK UP OUR SCIENCE WITH VERIFIABLE FACTS'

 TRUMP   MISSION  CONTROL  HOUSTON  REWRITES  CLIMATE SCIENCE
 AT  THE  HERITAGE  FOUNDATION:

All facts verified by Quintana Energy Partners,  formed by Quintana Capital Group, L.P. 
"to make control-oriented equity investments across the oil and natural gas, coal and power industries."  The firm styles itself : "opportunistic in selecting investments across the upstream, service and downstream sectors of the energy industry." 

9:15 am Welcome & Introductory Remarks
Becky Norton Dunlop, The Heritage Foundation 
Brooke Rollins, Texas Public Policy Foundation

9:30 am :        CONGRESSIONAL UPDATE
Senator Mike Lee, Member, Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee
Congressman Lamar Smith, Chairman, House Committee
on Science, Space, & Technology
Congressman Pete Olson, Chairman, Energy & Power Subcommittee, House Energy & Commerce
Congressman Gary Palmer, Member, House Committee
on Science, Space, & Technology
Moderated by Tim Chapman, Heritage Action                                                

11:00 am :        KEYNOTE ADDRESSES
Senator Jim Inhofe, Chairman, U.S. Senate Environment
& Public Works Committee
Corbin J. Robertson, Jr., Principal, Quintana Capital Group                                                                                                       

12:45 pm :   ENERGY & CLIMATE POLICY
Dr. David Kreutzer, The Heritage Foundation
Patrick J. Michaels, Cato Institute
Mark P. Mills, Manhattan Institute
Moderated by Horace Cooper, National Center for Public Policy

2:00 pm :    INDUSTRY & THE ECONOMY
Patrick Forkin, Peabody Energy
Allen Gilmer, Texas Independent Petroleum Producers Association Dan Byers, U.S. Chamber, Institute for 21st Century Energy Moderated by Nick Loris, The Heritage Foundation
continued

3:00 pm  A CONVERSATION ON CLIMATE INTIMIDATION
Andrew M. Grossman, Free Speech in Science Dr. Willie Soon, Independent Scientist

3:45 pm : IS CO2 REALLY A POLLUTANT? UPDATE FROM THE CO2 COALITION
Dr. William Happer, Princeton University
Dr. Craig D. Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Dr. David R. Legates, University of Delaware
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr. Roy W. Spencer, University of Alabama at Huntsville Moderated by Patrick J. Michaels, Cato Institute

5:00 pm                           Concluding Remarks
Becky Norton Dunlop, The Heritage Foundation; Brooke Rollins, Texas Public Policy Foundation

6:30 pm Dinner Keynote Address:
                  FUELING FREEDOM: EXPOSING THE MAD WAR ON ENERGY 
The Honorable Kathleen Hartnett White, Texas Public Policy Foundation 
["The IPCC] never really takes on an explanation of how the other variables in climate affect climate… It never takes on the Sun. There are a number of very, very senior atmospheric physicists—one I think of in particular, Fritz Varenholt, who wrote a book called The Neglected Sun. As a scientist, he's just appalled that better knowledge about the role of the Sun would not be a part of the science"

                                 --    Kathleen White. The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels , October 2016]
Stephen Moore, The Heritage Foundation
Moderated by The Honorable Doug Domenech, Texas Public Policy Foundation
                                        
  ELSEWHERE  IN  TRUMP TRANSITION  TEAM  CREDIBILITY  NEWS:
  ‘ The Intel on This Wasn’t 100%,’
          Says Pizzeria Gunman

In  an  interview with  The Times,  a soft-spoken  Edgar  M. Welch  described  from  jail  his thoughts leading up to his decision to fire an assault rifle inside Comet Ping Pong in Washington, D.C.

Sunday, December 4, 2016

          Whereof  We  Do  Not  Know,  Thereof  We  Now  Must  Tweet

Reality implodes,  but  Twitter Reality survives, as  the World's Most  
Famous  Wittgenstein  Scholar  Loyal Trump Surrogate,  Scottie Nell Hughes reaches an epistemological tipping point:

Having tweeted President Obama:
 " Sorry Mr President, Climate change is NOT a fact just like I COULD NOT keep my doctor! ... Scottie Nell Hughes @scottienhughes 28 Jan 2014.
Scottie-Nell-Hughes.jpgMrs. Hughes recently told Esquire :

 “One thing that’s been interesting this campaign season to watch is that people that say facts are facts—they’re not really facts. Everybody has a way —it’s kind of like looking at ratings or looking at a glass of half-full water,”

“Everybody has a way of interpreting them to be the truth or not true. There’s no such thing, unfortunately anymore, of facts. 

And so Mr. Trump’s tweets, amongst a certain crowd—a large part of the population—are truth. When he says that millions of people illegally voted, he has some facts—amongst him and his supporters—and people believe they have facts to back that up. Those that do not like Mr. Trump, they say that those are lies and there’s no facts to back it up.”

      ON THE  FIRST DAY OF RUNNING MY MODEL GAVE TO ME

'Tis the season to be  intercomparing climate models  and econometric projections  for vital  commodities, like  Partridges and Pear Trees. As to Bayesian  priors, my last  partridge  came  free, but  a  day late, at a Boxing Day shoot, and the last pear tree cost $28.

  • Partridge, $20; last year: $25
  • Pear tree, $190; last year: same
  • Two turtle doves, $375; last year: $290
  • Three French hens, $182; last year: same
  • Four calling birds (canaries), $600; last year: same
  • Five gold rings, $750; last year: same
  • Six geese-a-laying, $360; last year: same
  • Seven swans a-swimming, $13,125; last year: same
  • Eight maids a-milking, $58; last year: same
  • Nine ladies dancing (per performance), $7,553; last year: same
  • 10 lords a-leaping (per performance), $5,509; last year: same
  • 11 pipers piping (per performance), $2,708; last year: $2,635
  • 12 drummers drumming (per performance), $2,934; last year: $2,855
Disclosure & disclaimer  
This list is not intended  for fiduciary use, as swan cost no more to shoot than partridge, and the partridge & pear tree referred to were ~4,000 miles apart 
WARNING:  attempting  to place a swan in a pear tree may lead to grievous bodily harm.

Thursday, December 1, 2016

               CLIMATE  DIPLOMACY:  L' EFFET   DE  KERRY?


                     THE  BLOG  OF  THE  WALKING  DEAD

JOE ROMM GIVES THE ZOMBIE HORDE A PIECE OF HIS MIND 
Borrowing from the  mind control and  messaging playbooks of  Frank Lutz and the Reverend Moon, the indispensable  John Podesta protege' leads his  Climate Progress acolytes in chanting mantras from the dark Progressive Arts of  Not Reading,  Not Watching Fox and Never, Ever Ever Changing The Message:
 Dr. Joe Romm is Founding Editor of Climate Progress, “the indispensable blog,” 
as NY Times columnist Tom Friedman describes it.

9 things you can do right now to fight Trump’s war on climate and democracy
Activism is the sixth stage of grief

I have a feeling many of you reading this are still going through the famous five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Maybe all at once...

President-elect Donald Trump and his den of deniers pose an existential threat to America, the world, and, sadly, the next 50 generations. Whatever warming, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and Dust-Bowlification that we commit to because of his anti-science, pro-pollution policies will be irreversible on a timescale of a thousand years...
always remember the words of Frank Luntz, the GOP’s top messaging strategist: “There’s a simple rule: You say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and then again and again and again and again, and about the time that you’re absolutely sick of saying it is about the time that your target audience has heard it for the first time.”

Don’t debunk Trump’s lies by repeating them and don’t read news outlets that do. ..

Change your TV viewing habits. Stop watching cable news...  I’d suggest “NCIS” and “The Walking Dead.”... As you watch, consider who the zombie horde is a stand in for many Trump voters….


Wednesday, November 30, 2016

         A  POLITICAL  WAKE - UP  CALL  FROM  NATURE :  

 it's never to late to realize the debate isn't over:

Academia must resist political confirmation bias
It is crucial to fight discrimination in all its forms, but it is unhelpful 
to exclude conservative voices from debate.


Article tools

According to surveys and statistics, most Nature readers place themselves on the liberal left of the political spectrum. So two items published in The New York Times in the past few weeks will have provoked both consternation and debate. Many of our readers, for example, must have shaken their heads in despair while reading the transcript of an interview with US president-elect Donald Trump last week. The other item, an opinion piece entitled ‘The end of identity liberalism’ probably had many academics simply shaking.

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

  IF YOUR MODEL CRASHES,  AND THE PUPPY ROOM IS SHUT

GRIST   LETS  OUT  A  COLLECTIVE  MOAN :
This 9-step program is like 
Alcoholics Anonymous for climate anxiety.
The plan comes from the Salt Lake City support group “Good Grief,” which comforts people understandably stressed out by a warming planet, reports Yale Climate CommunicationsFrankly, it couldn’t have come soon enough. 
Laura Schmidt, who works at a clean air nonprofit in Utah, created the group to address what she calls “climate grief”: the feeling of anxiety and hopelessness that can overwhelm environmentalists. You may also know it as climate-based depressionclimate burnout, or eco-anxiety. 
After consulting with activists and scientists and studying the Alcoholics Anonymous 12-step model, Schmidt designed a program meant to unpack this emotional burden. The first step? Admitting there’s a problem. Other steps include acknowledging complicity in carbon emissions, finding beauty in nature, and reinvesting in climate activism. 
Schmidt hopes to roll out the program in Good Grief come January and create even more resources for her fellow climate grievers, such as workshops and classes. 
The nine-step plan joins the burgeoning ranks of other forms of climate therapy, from the government’s $8.2 million program for the mental health of Superstorm Sandy survivors to the New England poet–turned–climate-anxiety-doctor. After all, climate resilience can be emotional too.

   CAN  MORE P-R END THE CLIMATE  ADVERTISING WARS ?

AN  INTERESTING POST AT  ...and Then There's Physics  :

Science wars, science crises, and wars on science?

I’ve been thinking a bit about this recently and have been a little unsure as to what to say, mostly because I’m largely unimpressed by the articles I’ve read. I discovered, however, that an earlier post mostly says what I wanted to say. I’ll say some of it again, because it is worth repeating. There are certainly some issues that we should be addressing within academia and within the general research community. There are problems related to diversity that we’re not dealing with very well, or at all. There’s harassment and bullying that we’re either not addressing, or doing so very badly. ... There’s also a tendency to over-hype research in order to make it seem more interesting than it maybe is, and a reluctance to undertake replication studies, or to publish negative results. 
Even though these are all things that we could, and should, address, it doesn’t really mean that there is some kind of major crisis. In many respects, our understanding of the world around us is quite remarkable. In a sense, this might be one of the problems; we’re often trying to understand details of a complex system, the basics of which we understand quite well. This is challenging and it’s maybe not surprising that some of what is done won’t stand the test of time; research doesn’t require every step be correct, or that we don’t head down dead ends every now and again. We learn both from our mistakes and from our successes; it can be messy but it appears to, by and large, have been remarkably successful. Most of those who suggest some kind of major crisis appear to completely ignore this aspect of the process...
 Novelli's Mad Men suegued out of tobacco bashing and
into climate hype  when cigarette ads went off the air
 LED TO  AN EXCHANGE ON SCIENCE COMMUNICATION  PRO AND CON ,
ATTP:
“Also, even if some are using what they call “science communication” as a form of “propaganda” doesn’t suddenly justify claims that all of our scientific understanding is tainted, or that there is some kind of crisis.”
TO WHICH I REPLIED:
The problem is the temptation to render statements of concern self perpetuating by inflating them into declarations of crisis at the outset . Shortly after Hansen put the Climateball in play, I wrote :
As a window for laymen to peer through, Global Change and Our Common Future, published in 1989 by National Academy Press, affords a startling contrast. At one end of the spectrum lies the rhetoric of uncertainty that dominates the hard sciences in the study of global change. 
… As one participant in the forum, which produced Global Change, J.D. Mahlman, noted, “Until such decadal-scale fluctuations are understood or are predictable, it will remain difficult to diagnose the specific signals of permanent climate change as they evolve. ”
At the other end of the spectrum lies the rhetoric of extinction- life scientists confidently predicting the climate-driven disappearance of species over the next fifty years…
By the volume’s end, it is clear on which side Senator Albert Gore has enlisted: “My purpose is to sound an alarm, loudly and clearly, of imminent and grave danger, and to describe a strategy for confronting this crisis … the horrendous prospect of an ecological collapse. ” He delivered himself of this fine sermon on May Day 1989-the day before the forum started. So much for uncertainty.
The scientific progress made in the decades since speaks for itself to those who read the literature, but that unfortunately includes neither laymen or politicians , and sustaining ” this crisis” has lead to a crisis of interpretation.  Because it  pays to advertise.

In the generation since  Hansen turned up the heat on Capitol Hill in 1988, laymen and politicians have been shaped less by science  than the views of those motivated to communicate it- a risky business given the political sociology of  public television, and  the social construction of  both science and what the French shrewdly term vulgarisation scientifique.

This sustained campaign of  larger than life climate science communication has reified   Marshall McLuhan’s observation that with the avent of television, advertising has become more important than products.


Sunday, November 27, 2016

CASTRO  STILL  DEAD,  DOOMSDAY CLOCK REWINDS TO 1962

THEY  DON'T  MAKE  EXISTENTIAL  THREATS   LIKE  THEY  USED TO :
Tsar Bomba  51 megaton  Soviet  H-bomb test ,
 October 30 1961

Dear Comrade Fidel Castro:
We have received your letter of October 28... and are taking into account your difficulties... from the threat of an attack by American imperialists ... In your cable of October 27 you  proposed that we be  the  first  to carry out  a nuclear strike  against the enemy’s territory. Naturally you understand where that would lead us.   It would not be a simple strike, but the start of a thermonuclear world war.
Dear Comrade, I find your proposal  to  be  wrong,  even though I understand your reasons... Without a doubt the Cuban people would have fought courageously but... We struggle against imperialism, not in order to die, but to draw on all of our potential, to lose as little as possible, and later to win more, so as to be a victor and make communism triumph...
We consider that the aggressor has suffered a defeat. He was preparing to attack Cuba, but we stopped him ... This process of struggle will last for as long as there exists on this earth two sociopolitical systems, until one of the systems, and we know that it will be our communist system, triumphs world-wide...
Chairman of the  Presidium of The Supreme Soviet of  The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 



POSTSCRIPT:    DECEMBER 4,  2016

The  ashes  of  Cuba's  longest  serving  Dictator For Life  were  interred  today,  two  miles from San Juan Hill, where Theodore Roosevelt, later democratically elected as President of the United States, liberated the isand from imperial domination by defeating the forces of the King of Spain  in 1898.




Thursday, November 24, 2016

  NIXON IS  NOT  THE  ONLY  ONE  WHO  CAN  GO  TO  CHINA

IT'S   TIME  TO  REMIND  POLITIFACT  THAT
 THE  IDEA OF  CHINESE DISBELIEF IN  CLIMATE  CHANGE  IS  ITSELF A  HOAX,
   PERPETRATED BY  AMERICAN  PR FLACKS  JOE BAST & S. FRED SINGER


 PR performances tend to have simple plots. In 2014, famed  counter-factual tenor Heartland President  Joseph Bast  sang the following lines in Beijing,  when The Heartland  Peking Opera of the Deaf         The Nongovernmental International  Panel on Climate Change performed  Singer In China   paid a Chinese Academy translation service open to all comers to copy its pseudo-report in Mandarin.   
JOE BAST AS TURANDOTCOM

“This is a historic moment in the global debate about climate change, The translation and publication of Climate Change Reconsidered by the prestigeous Chinese Academy of Sciences follows strong statements by the Russian Academy of Sciences dissenting from claims that global warming is either man-made or a crisis"


 IN ACT II OF HEARTLAND'S PR OPERA, FALSETTO PROFUNDO FRED SINGER SANG  : 

'The trend toward skepticism and away from alarmism is now unmistakable! The Chinese Academy Of Science will present the new publication in a Ceremony of Climate Change Reconsidered and the Workshop on International Climate Change Science Viewpoints

on Saturday, June 15 in Beijing with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) Researchers from home and
abroad are warmly welcomed to attend the conference Venue' 

WAIT A MINUTE--THIS IS NOT THE CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
AFTER A SHORT INTERMISSION 












 


 




THE  REAL  CHINESE  ACADEMY  CHORUS   CAME  ON   STAGE,  SINGING A  VERY  DIFFERENT  TUNE:


'The claim of   The  Heartland  Institute  about  Chinese Academy of  Science  endorsement  of its  report  is  completely false. 

 

If   the  Heartland  Institute  does not withdraw its  false news  or refuse  to  apologize,  all  the consequences  and liabilities  should  be borne by  The  Heartland  Institute."

Sunday, November 20, 2016

       ONE  DEFENESTRATION  CAN  RUIN  YOUR  ENTIRE  DAY

IF  YOU DIDN'T  LIKE  THE  ELECTION
CONSIDER  WHERE  THE  INTERNET  IS TAKING  THE  CLIMATE WARS 
Climate  Activists, policy wonks and other  progressives have lately  been  reporting acute  feelings of  malaise,  depression  and  falling  through  space.

They need  not be alarmed. These are normal symptoms of Post-Defenestration Stress Syndrome, an election-year  affliction  long evident among Central European climate skeptics, that  has finally gone  viral enough to  jump the Atlantic and erupt in the fever swamps of the Potomac.

 A decade ago, The Chronicle of Higher Education ran an essay by Harvard legal theorist Cass Sunstein ( then at the University of Chicago) that speaks prophetically to recent both electoral politics and the Climate Wars : The Polarization of Extremes  in which Sunstein observes that:

In 1995 the technology specialist Nicholas Negroponte predicted the emergence of "the Daily Me" — a newspaper that you design person-ally, with each component carefully screened and chosen in advance. For many of us, Negroponte's prediction is coming true. As a result of the Internet, personalization is everywhere. If you want to read essays arguing that climate change is a fraud and a hoax, or that the American economy is about to collapse, the technology is available to allow you to do exactly that. If you are bored and upset by the topic of genocide, or by recent events in Iraq or Pakistan, you can avoid those subjects entirely. With just a few clicks, you can find dozens of Web sites that show you are quite right to like what you already like and think what you already think.
Actually you don't even need to create a Daily Me. With the Internet, it is increasingly easy for others to create one for you. If people know a little bit about you, they can discover, and tell you, what "people like you" tend to like — and they can create a Daily Me, just for you, in a matter of seconds. If your reading habits suggest that you believe that climate change is a fraud, the process of "collaborative filtering" can be used to find a lot of other material that you are inclined to like. Every year filtering and niche marketing become more sophisticated and refined. Studies show that on Amazon, many purchasers can be divided into "red-state camps" and "blue-state camps," and those who are in one or another camp receive suitable recommendations, ensuring that people will have plenty of materials that cater to, and support, their predilections.
Of course self-sorting is nothing new. Long before the Internet, newspapers and magazines could often be defined in political terms, and many people would flock to those offering congenial points of view. But there is a big difference between a daily newspaper and a Daily Me, and the difference lies in a dramatic increase in the power to fence in and to fence out.

Sunstein predicated this view on a sociological experiment conducted in Colorado in 2005, designed to cast light on the consequences of self-sorting. In it, members of each group were asked to deliberate on such controversial issues as gay marriage, affirmative action, and, tellingly ( Sunstein has his own prioroties) " Should the United States sign an international treaty to combat global warming?

As the experiment was designed, the groups consisted of "liberal" and "conservative" enclaves — the former from Boulder, the latter from Colorado Springs. It is widely known that Boulder tends to be liberal, and Colorado Springs tends to be conservative. Participants were screened to ensure that they generally conformed to those stereotypes. People were asked to state their opinions anonymously both before and after 15 minutes of group discussion. What was the effect of that discussion?
In almost every case, people held more-extreme positions after they spoke with like-minded others...[those who approbate what they consider ] a good idea can, and often do, read reams of material that support their view; they can, and often do, exclude any and all material that argues the other way. Those who dislike carbon taxes can find plenty of arguments to that effect. Many liberals jump from one liberal blog to another, and many conservatives restrict their reading to points of view that they find congenial. In short, those who want to find support for what they already think, and to insulate themselves from disturbing topics and contrary points of view...
There is a general risk that those who flock together, on the Internet or elsewhere, will end up both confident and wrong, simply because they have not been sufficiently exposed to counterarguments. They may even think of their fellow citizens as opponents or adversaries in some kind of "war."...
The devolution of the climate conversation into polarized camps that correspond  less to religions than hostile principalities, globalist and isolationist, has morphed the disturbing Thirty Years War battle cry, Cuius regio, eius religio --  'Your prince, his religion', into something even scarier:
 'Who rules you, rules what you believe'. 

While the Defenestrators and Defenestrated  of Prague had  a common Bible to thump, voters for Clinton and Trump had to bend their brains  to signifiy allegiance to climate  policy  positions less defined by  scientific gospel- the IPCC reports themselves,  than  election year party playbooks.  Anyone exposed to so much politically frought and ideologically predetermined material is likely  to emerge with a four year headache. 
  


Friday, November 18, 2016

   UNFORTUNATELY,  THEY'RE  THE  6%  WHO  BEAT  YALE 

Elephant and Man at Harvard

Particularly now, Harvard ought to make ideological diversity of all kinds a priority


As students and professors continue to take stock of the results of Tuesday’s election, the ideological uniformity of much of Harvard’s population will no doubt dominate campus conversation. Honing in on Harvard’s undergraduates, The Crimson’s pre-election survey affirmed—to an extent—the College’s reputation as a liberal bastion. While we should use caution in using these results to make blanket assumptions about all academic and social contexts in which students discuss politics, the survey points to an overall lack of ideological diversity that should concern faculty, administrators, and students alike, especially at this moment in our history.

The most glaring ideological diversity deficit among undergraduates is the relatively small number of students who identify as conservative. In the election survey, fewer than 13 percent of respondents described themselves as “somewhat” or “very” conservative, compared to over 70 percent describing themselves as “somewhat” or “very” liberal. 
In contrast, when a Gallup poll early this year asked Americans to describe themselves as “very liberal,” “liberal,” “conservative,” “very conservative,” or “moderate,” a plurality—37 percent—picked one of the two conservative options, while 35 percent chose “moderate.” In The Crimson’s survey, only 16 percent of respondents picked “moderate.” Most striking, in the Gallup survey, only 24 percent picked one of the liberal choices. 

Similarly, while nearly 48 percent of Americans voted for Donald J. Trump in his victory on Tuesday, just 6 percent of undergraduate respondents to The Crimson’s survey preferred him. This number stands in stark contrast to the 35 percent of millennials nationwide who cast their ballots for the President-elect—a testament to his divisiveness, but also a reflection of the insularity of the Harvard bubble.

The causes of this ideological imbalance are likely as varied as the reasons people choose to attend Harvard in the first place, and it would be unrealistic to expect our campus to exactly mirror the political divisions of the country at any given moment. But when the disconnect has grown to such proportions, diversifying political expression in all settings ought to become an administrative priority. The pursuit of “Veritas” which undergirds our intellectual life demands not only that each member of our community be able to debate politics freely, but also that we attend to the multitude of political views that exist in our nation. Stifling this discussion on campus is a disservice to our peers in the campus political minority, and to our own educational growth.

In the same vein, administrators and faculty should take active steps to ensure that students of all political stripes feel comfortable voicing their ideas, especially in the classroom. Concretely, this effort will likely involve actively encouraging the airing of different views, and curtailing unnecessary or inappropriate expressions of political favor by professors. Guaranteeing that more conservative professors teach in subject areas that clearly lean liberal, like the humanities, is also crucial. 

This is not to say that Harvard should simply shift its discourse rightwards; the need may differ from department to department. In economics, for instance, more political views from the radical left would likely enrich our intellectual experience in the same way as more conservative views would in the humanities. 

Ultimately, this week’s surprises have underscored Harvard students’ need to understand those who disagree with us, however strongly we feel that their views would lead to catastrophe or injustice. Though Harvard will never perfectly reflect the American public’s political composition—nor should it seek to—Harvard students are not exempt from remaining in touch with reality.