You're Going to Need Some Brand New Lines

An excellent video: Obama's Going to Need Some Brand New Lines

Solyndra & Obama: Another Example of Government Picking the Winners

Government can pick the winners say statists of all sorts. And, once again, with the bankruptcy of Soyndra we see the problem of corporatism -- government experts cannot pick the winners. In the 1980s numerous American statists pointed to Japan as the way of the future. Japan, Inc. it was called. Corporatism was the perfect blend of big business and big government.

The future didn't work the way the statists expected; but then it never does. The US government sunk over $500,000,000 in Solyndra only to have it end in bankruptcy.

The California solar panel manufacturer that received a high-profile $535-million Energy Department loan guarantee said it was ceasing operations, laying of 1,100 workers and preparing to file for bankruptcy protection. ...
It was quite a fall from late 2009, when Solyndra received a $535-million federal loan guarantee as part of the $787-billion economic stimulus package. In May 2010, company executives hosted President Obama on a factory tour and said they expected to add employees. ...
Solyndra would become the third such company to file for bankruptcy in recent days. Spectrawatt Inc. of Hopewell Junction, N.Y., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Aug. 19. Evergreen Solar Inc. of Marlboro, Mass., filed for Chapter 11 on Aug. 15.
Solar panel firm Solyndra to cease operations

Global Warming: It's the Suns' Fault

For years now AGW proponents have argued two points: that their models are accurate (and becoming ever more so) and that the debate is settled, namely that all scientists agree that human activity is the cause of the "dramatic" increase in global temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere.

People like me, who question the accuracy of the findings (and are appalled by the politics surrounding the issue) are derided as anti-science, anti-reason boobs.

Now, out comes a research study from CERN, a study long-delayed due to political intereference, which turns the AGW positions on its head. It's findings, if true, completely invalidate the existing climate models. Second, and as important, it once again underscores the fact that AGW is not "settled" science.

The CERN press release states that "it is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised." The press release concludes with the statement "However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed."

The concluding statement is a necessary show of scientific humility, one not taken by the AGW zealots.

If you want to hear a presentation made by Jasper Kirkby at a TED conference, here it is:



EDIT: 9/14/2011

For further evidence that the science is not settled note that Nobel Prize Physicists are resigning from the American Physical Society over the position that the debate is settled.

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate....

For further reading see the following from the American Physical Society:

There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.

As for example the following quote from an APS article, Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:

1.Radiative forcing ΔF;
2.The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and
3.The feedback multiplier ƒ.

Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.