Friday, September 02, 2011

Paper Disputing Basic Science of Climate Change is "Fundamentally Flawed," Editor Resigns, Apologizes - [Climate hoax promoter Peter Gleick] - Forbes
There is a famous saying in science: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” In this case, the arguments for climate change are backed up by such an astounding degree of science and evidence [like what, specifically?], that one, or even a few, papers that claim to refute the science of climate change deserve careful scrutiny.
Planning reforms will lead to more wind turbines - Telegraph
The number of wind turbines will treble under the Coalition’s planning reforms, campaigners have warned.
Naomi Klein, native protesters arrested at White House pipeline protest | CanadianBusiness.com
"I have seen the devastation of our environment and people's health with increased cancer deaths," Deranger said before his arrest. "If Obama approves this pipeline, it would only lead to more of our people needlessly dying."
...
While Daryl Hannah and Margot Kidder, both arrested during the two-week campaign, aren't exactly at the height of their celebrity, former vice-president Al Gore, now a leading American environmentalist, has also weighed in.
Obama/Solyndra Reaction: "Should government pick winners/losers? Qualified Yes!" - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine
Finally I think the ed board is thinking wishfully when it claims the Solyndra debacle just raises “two important questions.” I can think of a few others: What did Solyndra do with the $527 million (out of a total guarantee of $535 million) it borrowed in the form of taxpayer-subsidized loans? Why did the Energy Department provide so much money for a technology – cylindrical rather than flat solar panels – that has not been proven scalable? What role did Tulsa-based fundraiser George Kaiser, whose George Kaiser Family Foundation held more than a 35 percent equity stake in Solyndra as of an aborted IPO in 2009, play in encouraging this subsidy?

1 comment:

papertiger said...

Fundamentally flawed! Heh.
When you look at it from the jackass' perspective, I suppose that's true. A fundamentalist global warming bed wetter will look at a paper with eyes to see only the disclaimer "these findings should not be interpreted as a refutation of global warming" no matter how deep the paper's actual conclusions bury the consensus position.