http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/28/gergis-et-al-correspondence/ Pretty interesting e-mails on the Gergis paper that was discussed here months ago. The paper has since been withdrawn as it had a major error but the interesting point of this post at CA is just how petty these "climate scientists" are. Climate audit starts its discussion on the paper. E-mails between the scientists in question show that they are following that discussion at CA. CA then finds the error. Then the authors of the paper who are following the discussion claim to the journal that they had independently discovered the same error. They lie to the journal about when they discovered the error and also about when CA discovered the error so that they can claim that they had discovered the error independently and first. Now the paper is withdrawn never to be published and that is the best thing as the paper was the usual hockey stick crap. But he sheer pettiness in these e-mails is repulsive. You cant give the skeptics one ounce of credit less you lose the appeal to authority war.
Climate change to affect food crops... Climate Change Could Alter Global Eating Habits November 05, 2012 - Climate change might force changes in diets around the world as certain staple foods become harder to produce, according to international agriculture researchers.
The change in climate has had a good effect for the deep south here in the U.S. The area has had a bumper crop of peanuts (so many they are running out of storage space) and other crops are booming also. They are talking about an agriculture windfall down here...and becoming Americas new breadbasket. We can grow just about any crop that can be grown just about anywhere else in the U.S. and we are getting decent rain.
There is a nice little nuget burreid within these e-mails dealing with Dr. Mann and realclimate.org The truth at the time was that Dr. Mann and his cohorts Gavin and Eric at realclimate knew exactly why the paper had been retraced. They had been discussing the error since it was discovered at CA. But they chose to lie to the readers of realcliamte.org. Realclimate was basically doing an 'All is well' lie to their readership. I love how alarmists don't believe that their prophets will lie to them.
Warmers never get it. Prosecutors hate to bring capital cases because they know that when its a life-or-death situation juries demand a case that is beyond a slam-dunk open-and-shut case. The bar is psychologically raised to astronomical levels. The same thing has happened here. Because the "remedies" put forth are nothing short of economic national suicide, people in the US demand a scientific case that is beyond air-tight. Science simply cannot deliver a case that bullet-proof. the failure of the ozone hole science calls all atmospheric science into question. Why don't the Warmers come up with a less horrendous alternative "remedy?" Let me give you a clue. Why not propose forgetting the increased taxation and regulation and in particular shut out the UN. The US could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by: 1) Massively embracing nuclear power for electric power generation. This would entail replacing the 103 Eisenhower-era nukes operating in the US now and building about 500 more. Move the spent fuel rods to Yucca Mountain. Rescind the Jimmy Carter Executive Order banning reprocessing of fuel rods, reducing the mass of nuclear waste by at least 50%. If somebody makes fusion work, that's fine, but you don't wait on it. Fusion plants could be substituted for fission plants. 2) Find a way to electrify our freight transportation system. This means first electrifying our freight railroads' main lines. There's only about 35,000 miles of main line left but that accounts for a quarter million barrels of oil a day. Once that was done you start putting electric catenary lines on major Interstate highways so that trucks could use electricity (now generated by nuclear power) for long-haul movement of stuff. Between the two there's over 40% of America's carbon dioxide emissions. If the rest of the world wants to do taxes, regulations, and the UN, let them do so. I don't see any of them making any effort to commit national suicide. Because government works incrementally and never backs up, the people simply cannot EVER believe the Warmer "science" because having done so there is then no defense against a national suicide pact. Why don't the Warmers grow up and drop the extremist "remedy?"
It was Carter in 1978. He did so because fuel rod (and reactor shielding) reprocessing is where you get plutonium. At the time Carter was scared to death of the soviets and he issued that Executive order to appease the Soviets. That Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 did not rescind that order is to their discredit.
What was President Ford's policy on reprocessing? and what reasons did Reagan, and Bush I and II give for not rescinding the EO?
