Drilling into noise

[Lewandowsky/Oberauer] What about climate? The correlation between the Moon item and the "CauseCO2" item is smaller, around -.12, but also highly significant, p < .0001.

Now you know why the title of our paper was “NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science.” We put the "(climate)" in parentheses before "science" because the association between conspiracist ideation and rejection of science was greater for the other sciences than for climate science.

Twitter / RyanMaue: Whoa, anyone buying this? ...

Whoa, anyone buying this? NAM's 4km nest has 17°F for lowest Minnesota temps Tues morn. http://www.weatherbellmodels.com/weather/hires/2012091700/mw/hires_t2m_min_mw_mouse.php … pic.twitter.com/aMrfU2Fn

Twitter / RogerHelmerMEP: In this new era of cheap shale ...

In this new era of cheap shale gas, wind power looks increasingly irrelevant: http://is.gd/GRX7gJ

Arguments for wind power are just hot air - Telegraph

One of the saddest phrases I too often hear on my travels is “I’m not against wind energy but…” Of course I understand why people say this: because thanks to the endless green propaganda of the past two decades we’ve been brainwashed into thinking that to be against any form of “renewable” energy somehow makes you an evil climate-change denier in the pay of Big Oil. But this is not only craven and selfish (OK: so whose stretch of cherished country do you think should be blighted then?) but also counterproductive, for it concedes to the vultures of Big Wind a moral ascendancy that they simply haven’t earned.