Related posts:

1. Fire the Whole Lot Regarding my post on the ACT scores turned in by students in our area government schools, a few more thoughts crossed my mind. As I...

So, without further ado here’s a taste and a link:

“Many papers indeed have claimed to find a human “fingerprint”, but upon close examination the evidence is simply consistent with human caused warming — while conveniently neglecting to point out that the evidence would also be consistent with naturally caused warming. This disingenuous sleight-of-hand is just one more example of why the public is increasingly distrustful of the climate scientists they support with their tax dollars.”

Let the hair-raising begin!

Related posts:

1. Tornado Outbreaks, God, and Global Warming “Anyone who claims more tornadoes are caused by global warming is either misinformed, pandering, or delusional.” Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Anyone who claims tornadoes are...
2. So Much Here To Like.. Unequivocal Equivocation… as noted on Anthony Watt’s WUWT is must reading, and I assume some of you who float in here have done this. But...
3. Global Warming is a ‘Phony Mess’ Texas governor Rick Perry’s bid for the Republican expected nomination has cheered climate sceptics who share his view that global warming is a ‘phony mess’...

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/bratland7.pdf

Related posts:

1. Planet of the Taxpayers Had a Libertarian moment this morning, and enjoyed Tucker’s piece. While philosophically Libertarianism is a boat without a sail or rudder, the gang over at...

The public-interest group Judicial Watch has obtained the documents through the Freedom of Information Act from the Food and Drug Administration detailing reports of harmful reactions to the vaccination for human papillomavirus, also known as HPV.

“The adverse-reaction reports detail 26 new deaths reported between Sept. 1, 2010, and Sept. 15, 2011, as well as incidents of seizures, paralysis, blindness, pancreatitis, speech problems, short-term memory loss and Guillain-Barré Syndrome,” Judicial Watch said.

Gardasil earns Merck over 1 billion dollars profit every year.

See Judicial Watch Article

Related posts:

1. Social Security is Immoral When Governor Rick Perry dared to say that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, his Republican challengers for the Republican Presidential nomination swooped down on...

I have posted regarding Dr. Roy Spencer before, but this is really a big deal…

First read this: LINK1

Then this: LINK2

Related posts:

1. Spencer Waxes Spot On! Dr. Roy Spencer: . . . Why would scientists allow themselves to be used in this way? When I have pressed them on the science...
2. Hey Science Magazine, It’s Getting Colder … I just find thsi stuff utterly fascinating… Roy Spencer writes: “Of course, if Science refuses to publish it, that is another matter. Dick Lindzen has...
3. Global Warming is a ‘Phony Mess’ Texas governor Rick Perry’s bid for the Republican expected nomination has cheered climate sceptics who share his view that global warming is a ‘phony mess’...

Perry calls global warming “all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight.” Unlike many of the other GOP presidential candidates, he hasn’t expressed concern about climate change in the past, so he won’t have to do any back-pedaling. Notorious climate denier Marc Morano is a big fan: “Based on climate views alone, anyone who is holding their nose voting for Mitt Romney because there’s no other viable candidate will now rejoice to have an option with Rick Perry.”

Read Rick Perry to delight climate sceptics by running for president

Related posts:

1. Tornado Outbreaks, God, and Global Warming “Anyone who claims more tornadoes are caused by global warming is either misinformed, pandering, or delusional.” Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Anyone who claims tornadoes are...
2. Hey, Hey, Heyyy … It’s Fat Albert! FA is, well, getting fatter. FA has made a fortune off of the Global Warming scam due in no small measure from...
3. Who Are the Real Terrorist Bill Anderson took the words out of my mouth this morning. The government deems you a domestic threat if you coin money that can hold...

FA is, well, getting fatter. FA has made a fortune off of the Global Warming scam due in no small measure from government hacks (and others with very small brains) who have been able to institute public policy to get taxpayer money. Al Gore is nothing more than a common thief running a very effective money scam.

Related posts:

1. Hey,Hey Goodbye First of all I would like to apologize to the stressed out, nearly retired on my money teacher from the last post. Admin felt my...
2. Hey! Look! My Neighbor Is Ready to be Robbed! Only people that serve no purpose in life can continue to come up with stupid ideas. The Illinois AG did just that. Her latest stupid...
3. Hey Science Magazine, It’s Getting Colder … I just find thsi stuff utterly fascinating… Roy Spencer writes: “Of course, if Science refuses to publish it, that is another matter. Dick Lindzen has...

1. The biggest single component of retail gasoline prices is the cost of the raw material used to produce gasoline crude oil.

2. Components of gasoline price (at the pump):

A. Crude oil -70%.
B. Refining and retailing -17 %
C. Taxes – 13%

3. Who owns “big oil?” Well, since you asked…you do! IRA’s (14%), Pension Funds (27%), Mutual Funds (30%), and Individual Investors (23%) account for roughly 94% of the ownership of “big oil.” When politicians such as Barack Hussein Obama talk about a “windfall profits tax” he is talking about taxing you! According to Energy Information Administration (publicly available data on the top 27 energy companies tracked by the EIA), the total income tax paid by these companies almost doubled between 2004 and 2006 – they paid in over $90.4 billion dollars in 2006! Folks, the reality is that these companies simply pass those costs onto end users at the pump (see item C in #2 above… and add to that the internal tax component slapped on at the corporate level). Imposing additional taxes on the U.S. oil and natural gas industry will not help to increase supplies of energy for American consumers but will serve only to discourage investment. Instituting new taxes or repealing tax provisions designed to encourage investment in the United States will only reduce new domestic oil production and refinery investments, threaten American jobs, and make it less economic to produce domestic energy resources. The end result would be obvious a greater dependence on imported crude oil and gasoline.

5. Relative to sales, the net income of oil and natural gas companies is somewhere in the neighborhood of 7.4%. This is by no means out of the ordinary for industrial companies. In fact, they are basically in the middle of the pack. Pharmaceutical and Medicine runs about 26%, manufacturing companies in general run around 7.6%.

6. Oil companies invest literally billions of dollars for the right to explore on federal lands. If the company does not produce within the time frame of the lease agreement, the agreement is over and it reverts back to the federal government – this is a lease, not a sale. Oil companies have a huge (billion $) incentive to recapture their investment through production. To suggest they purposefully do not produce is utterly a lie and is totally false.

7. Oil companies actively develop leased lands, but not all leased areas contain oil or natural gas in sufficient quantities to make it economically feasible to extract. The timeline and cost to evaluate, explore, permit, lift and extract is long and complex.

8. The mere fact a lease exists does not necessarily mean there is oil or natural gas there – energy companies have to get the leases first, and then go about seismic sensing to determine if further exploration is even warranted. Bottom line, there are huge risks and challenges in searching and extracting.

9. Due to environmental and other studies, permits required, the installation of production equipment (on shore and off), neighboring landowner disputes and litigation, and other regulatory hoops the process of producing on potentially productive leased lands can be delayed significantly.

10. 85% of the continental outer shelf and almost 70% of onshore federal lands are off-limits or face significant restrictions to development – the amount of oil contained in these areas is UNKNOWN because they cannot be subjected to modern inventory studies.

11. Oil and gas companies move as quickly as they can to develop production on any leases with economic feasibility. But the real fact of the matter is that they must also pay rent to the government while they conduct development and exploration efforts, a process that takes time. Reducing the time companies have to develop a lease or increasing the costs imposed by government will not increase supply for American consumers. Nor will denying access to areas of oil and natural gas potential like the Atlantic and Pacific Outer Continental Shelf and ANWAR.

12. Every additional barrel of oil or cubic foot of natural gas that can be economically produced will help to either lower or, at worst, maintain the price of products derived from crude oil and natural gas. It is utter myth and misrepresentation to state that drilling and extracting more of any natural resource cannot affect its price.

13. Oil and gas companies are the ones taking all the risks! They pay out billions of dollars to obtain leases, they pay more to hold those leases, and then invest huge sums to determine feasibility and inventory potential. By levying more constraints and costs upon these companies you will only discourage the very activity we need the most to help alleviate our supply constraints.

14. Lastly….for now…. while it is true that we have not build a new refinery here in the U.S. in the last 30 years this does not mean we have not expanded and to one degree or another modernized the facilities we have. Moreover, the economics of making gasoline (only one of a myriad of products made from crude oil) favor refining as close as possible to the point of lifting. So, it makes more sense, financially, to lift and refine then ship. If we had more domestic production of crude we would, by necessity, invest far more in refining capacity as well.

h/t dontreadonme @ Shame on Fox News!

Related posts:

1. Gasoline: one gallon for a dime? YES! h/t to Schiff.. If you had a 1964 dime (silver) you could sell it for its silver content and have enough paper dollars to pay...
2. Ignore the Idiot Suppose for a moment you landed on a tropical island where schools of fish swim just offshore and fruit abounds in the trees. The natives,...
3. Obamanomic reaction.. Hot off the printing presses… While campaigning for the 2012 Presidential Election… President Barack Obama says the Justice Department is assembling a team to investigate...

Anyone who claims tornadoes are caused by God (whatever that means) is simply delusional, pandering, or still suffering from the religious indoctrination and brain slanting suffered in childhood..

Slim P.

Related posts:

1. Abuse of a 7 year-old by PBXVI This is simply obscene and, in my view, intellectual child abuse! When will people learn… He (Pope Benedict XVI) also answered a question from a...
2. Is God a Socialist? As you prepare for church on Sunday morning, what type of message will the pulpit deliver? Does your minister believe the word of God to...

‘Everyone’s God and if we don’t wake up to that there’s going to be no weather because our polar caps are melting because we’re doing bad things to the atmosphere. . . . If we don’t change that as rapidly as I’m speaking to you now, if we don’t put the green back on the planet and put the trees back that we’ve butchered, if we don’t go to war against the problem… bla, bla, bla.” ~ Charles Manson (from prison)

One wonders if Al will quote him soon. Full story here..

No related posts.

Roy Spencer writes:

“Of course, if Science refuses to publish it, that is another matter. Dick Lindzen has recently told me Science has been sitting on his critique of Dessler’s paper for months. Science has demonstrated an editorial bias against ’skeptical’ climate papers in recent years, something I hope they will correct.”

Me too.. I desire a well-rounded, unbiased, debate..

http://bit.ly/hA1FLF

Oh, and by the way, Dr. Spencer also reports “The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for March 2011 fell to -0.10 deg. C, with cooling in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheric extratropics, while the tropics stayed about the same as last month.”

Related posts:

1. Spencer Waxes Spot On! Dr. Roy Spencer: . . . Why would scientists allow themselves to be used in this way? When I have pressed them on the science...
2. Hey,Hey Goodbye First of all I would like to apologize to the stressed out, nearly retired on my money teacher from the last post. Admin felt my...
3. Hey! Look! My Neighbor Is Ready to be Robbed! Only people that serve no purpose in life can continue to come up with stupid ideas. The Illinois AG did just that. Her latest stupid...

John McCain Jr. (aka Tim Pawlenty) has made it official and is running for President. God help us if this what we have to chose from again this time around…

See Story

No related posts.

So, here’s a sampling of both the pithy and not so pithy comments that made my day:

wayne Job says:
January 15, 2011 at 4:30 am
Nicely and roundly roasted. Well done.

TinyCO2 says:
January 15, 2011 at 4:31 am
Yeah, what Willis said. All of it.

And one more thing. If CAGW is correct, future generations will put the blame for inaction onto climate scientists who don’t take Willis’s words to heart. They won’t be blinded by tribalism into blaming the sceptics who asked reasonable questions or demanded decent standards in the science. They’ll condemn those people who should have met those challenges.

David Jones says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:08 am
Robb876 says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:55 am
Could anybody actually make it through that entire post??

Yes, and I pretty much understood every word of it. What’s up Robb? To heavy and complex for you?

David L says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:24 am
Robb876 says:
January 15, 2011 at 3:55 am
Could anybody actually make it through that entire post??”

Pretty much everyone with an attention span longer than a gnat’s

Smokey says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:54 am
Robb876 says:

“Could anybody actually make it through that entire post??”

I thoroughly enjoyed it. But if someone who has bought into the notion that a harmless and beneficial trace gas is going to cause thermogeddon, then, as they say, “the truth hurts,” and turning one’s eyes away is a relief.

CO2 has risen about 40%. That is significant. If increased CO2 caused global harm, we would surely have seen evidence of it by now. But there is no verifiable evidence that anything unusual is occurring, except for the substantial increase in agricultural production.

In a world where a billion people subsist on less than $1 a day, more CO2 means life for many of them. But I think Dr Trenberth cares more about keeping the grant gravy train rolling than he cares about starvation.

Rick says:
January 15, 2011 at 6:09 am
Robb876 asks “could anybody actually make it through that entire post”
I know that Robb 876 has already moved on to “boobs aplenty com.” but his retort highlights one of the problems we face today. The public will not or can not engage for more than 183 seconds without becoming bored and changing the channel. I think that Robb876 should read the whole post. My neighbor should read the whole post. After I told my neighbor that AGW was overblown he told me I should get out more.

Alexander K says:
January 15, 2011 at 6:30 am
I like to re-visit posts I have enjoyed to catch up on the comments, but Buzz Belleville, your contribution left me with my jaw dropped for a while. Your ‘sustainable energy law class’ sounds like something that would have been taught during the 1960s in a commune not far from Haight-Ashbury.

Jack Simmons says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:25 am
Great summary. Well written.

Another side point:
I am really getting tired of certain words and phrases such as:

robust
unequivocal
“Back in the day…” – a reference to a time when things were better, people did their job right, etc. Why not say something like: “back in the mid-sixties…”
“At the end of the day…” – People used to say “In the final analysis…”. That was wrong too, because there is no final analysis on anything. Why not say something like “My conclusion is…” or “The evidence suggests…”
awesome – used when someone accomplishes anything such as remembering to pull up their zipper.
perfect – used as awesome.

These latter two words are sprinkled liberally in the speech and writings of people under thirty. My theory is we are seeing the results of a generation taught to have high self esteem. Teachers encouraged their students not by challenging them to do better, but by telling them spelling the word CAT correctly was ‘awesome’. Not punching Sally out at lunch time was ‘perfect’. My teachers encouraged me by refraining from drawing red check marks all over my papers. This happened when I got the correct answers. No one was awesome or perfect; language of that nature was reserved for truly awesome things like landing on the moon or a politician telling the truth.

Of course robust and unequivocal are terms used by people trying to add credence to their theories; as regular readers of this blog site can attest.

Its too bad. All of these are nice words, overused by a generation losing its ability to talk and write with precision and accuracy. When a people loses its language, they lose the verbal symbols of ideas and their world is diminished.

Flashy’s reply to Jack Simmons: NICE!

alan says:
January 15, 2011 at 8:08 am
“…serially unsuccessful doomcaster” Wonderful! The history of AGW in a nutshell.

Ben Palmer says:
January 15, 2011 at 8:08 am
Truly brilliant post, kept me breathless down to the last line.

Theo Goodwin says:
January 15, 2011 at 7:19 am
Superior work, Willis. Everyone should print a copy of your essay in large print and attach it to the wall just behind the monitor. Trenberth’s essay and your essay provide a perfect snapshot of the state of the debate about climate science at this time. In brief, Trenberth and his crowd avoid debate at all costs and push the “science is settled” meme. As you show so very well, Trenberth does it by moving the pea. By contrast, your analysis says exactly what must be shown, what has not been shown, and how to show it. We owe you a great debt of gratitude.

Snotrocket says:
January 15, 2011 at 8:35 am
Robb876 said:
January 15, 2011 at 3:55 am
“Could anybody actually make it through that entire post??”

I sure could! And I’d do it again. There is something about reading such elegant prose, especially when constructed in such well-delivered argument. I shall probably read it again before the day is out.

As for you Robb876 (My! You really are way down the scale of Robbs, aren’t you? Couldn’t think of something a little lower in the order of names? – Just gentle joshing ), I can only urge you to really take the trouble to read all the way to the bottom – comments an’ all. It will open your mind, and maybe blow in the fresh winds of truth with which to fumigate it. Who knows, your lethargic comprehension might improve with use.

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 25, 2011 at 3:07 am
robert says:
January 17, 2011 at 4:53 pm

Willis Eschenbach at January 15, 2011
You are wrong to insinuate that there has been 0 warming over the past decade. It is very difficult for short term trends to be statistically significant at the 95% even when they do show warming. Using your example I could say that the confidence intervals indicate either it has warmed (which all datasets suggest with their mean values) that it has cooled (if we go to the absolute bottom of the confidence intervals) or that it has warmed rapidly (if we go to the absolute top of the confidence intervals). It is interesting that you would choose to indicate there has been 0 warming over the past decade with statistical significance as what you are hiding behind. As I’ve said before, it is very difficult to find statistically significant trends over short time period at the 95% level.

Robert, I’m not “insinuating” that there has been no statistically significant warming in the past decade. I’m flat-out stating there has been no warming in the last 15 years, and I have given excellent mathematical authority for the statement.

You say “the confidence intervals indicate either it has warmed (which all datasets suggest with their mean values) that it has cooled (if we go to the absolute bottom of the confidence intervals)”. That’s exactly the point. We don’t know, it could be either warming or cooling. That’s what “no statistically significant trend” means.

And no, it is not difficult to establish a trend in a 15-year monthly dataset, that’s nonsense. It has happened many times in the 150 temperature record.

Finally, I’m not “hiding behind” statistics. I’m using these statistics for their intended purpose, which is determining whether a trend is statistically significant. I see that you don’t like the fact that the warming trend has ceased for over a decade, but that’s just ugly reality, so there’s no use in your continuing to hide from it …

w.

No related posts.

See Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl

No related posts.

. . . Why would scientists allow themselves to be used in this way? When I have pressed them on the science over the years, they all retreat to the position that getting away from fossil fuels is the ‘right thing to do anyway’.

In other words, they have let their worldviews, their politics, their economic understanding (or lack thereof) affect their scientific judgment. I am ashamed for our scientific discipline and embarrassed by their behavior.

Is it any wonder that scientists have such a bad reputation among the taxpayers who pay them to play in their ivory tower sandboxes? They can make gloom and doom predictions all day long of events far in the future without ever having to suffer any consequences of being wrong.

Balance here..

No related posts.