and in completely unrelated news:
"...Average retail gas prices in the state have surged 25 cents a gallon in less than a week, from $2.98 per gallon for regular on Monday to $3.23 per gallon on Friday. That caps a run that saw the price of regular unleaded go up 60 cents per gallon since Jan. 30 as refineries prepare to shift to a summer blend of fuels.
In some areas of Southern California, gas station owners were forced to pass price hikes of 24 cents per gallon along to consumers on Thursday after seeing wholesale prices shoot up. Prices in Northern California lagged a day, but by Friday were also rising; an independent operator with a chain of gas stations around the San Francisco Bay area boosted prices 20 cents a gallon for regular on Friday, to $3.19.
The situation underscores the frustrating complexity of the gasoline market in California, where state environmental regulations mandate a specialized blend of fuel that isn't used anywhere else in the U.S.
Because of that, California is economically isolated and can't easily or quickly purchase fuel from outside the state in a crisis..."
From Nature World News:
“It’s no secret that solar power is hot right now, with innovators and big name companies alike putting a great deal of time, money, and effort into improving these amazing sources of renewable energy. Still, the last thing you’d likely expect is for a new experimental array to literally light nearly 130 birds in mid-flight on fire.
And yet, that’s exactly what happened near Tonopah, Nevada last month during tests of the 110-megawatt Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project.”
“According to Rudy Evenson, Deputy Chief of Communications for Nevada Bureau of Land Management (NBLM) in Reno, as reported by Re Wire, a third of the newly constructed plant was put into action on the morning of Jan. 14, redirecting concentrated solar energy to a point 1,200 feet above the ground.”
“Unfortunately, about two hours into the test, engineers and biologists on site started noticing “streamers” – trails of smoke and steam caused by birds flying directly into the field of solar radiation. What moisture was on them instantly vaporized, and some instantly burst into flames – at least, until they began to frantically flap away. An estimated 130 birds were injured or killed during the test.”
“Officials behind the project have refuted that claim, saying that most of the streamers are floating trash or wayward insects, but federal wildlife officials have begun calling these ‘eco-friendly’ power towers “mega traps” for wildlife.”
The climatologists quickly called another conference to assure the public that all was well in hand. “The team’s suggestion of why the weatherman’s model is broken can’t possibly be right. Therefore the weatherman’s model must be a good one. Only science deniers can deny this.”
The weatherman continued predicting hot air, but only cold air was to be seen. Some in the public grumbled louder. So the climatologists contacted the state authorities. The governor and state legislature were brought in, as were educational, union, and business leaders. All begin promoting the climatologists’ message that the weatherman was right and the weather wrong. The president of the United States eventually came to the rescue with an official list of Science Deniers. He said that those who love Science should “go after” the deniers.
Which they did. And then everybody died of pneumonia.
Wm Briggs on his Blog:
A very odd thing happened in Science. Turns out a famous weatherman has been forecasting highs in the 60s then 70s for New York City all winter long. But the temperature never rose above the single digits, teens, twenties, and thirties.
One day a writer at the New York Post wrote an article telling people not to trust the weatherman, who, it turned out, had issued a prediction for the following day for a “High of 80!”
Climatologists stationed at NASA on the Upper West Side were incensed that a non-scientist would interfere with Science. So the climatologists spoke with the weatherman, who said he was basing his predictions on a sophisticated computer model. The weatherman admitted his difficulties, but said his model would have performed great if only he had better measures of surface snow cover.
This reasoning wholly convinced the climatologists who held a press conference at which they insisted, “Whoever disagrees with this weatherman is a science denier. The weatherman is using a sophisticated computer model, which can only get better since we have provided the weatherman with New & Improved! measures of surface snow cover.”
Cowed, the press skittered away, went home and put on their shorts to await the promised warmth. But the next day the high was only 16oF. And for the next week it was bitterly cold, yet the weatherman went on predicting a heatwave. This raised eyebrows, but since nobody wanted to be called a denier, they didn’t insist the weatherman was wrong.
The climatologists suspected, however, that something wasn’t quite right. So they called another meeting with the weatherman. He admitted he had incorporated the New & Improved! surface snow cover measurements, but that hadn’t helped much. And besides, there wasn’t anything wrong after all. The model was still great—better than great—but it was natural variability that was to blame for the wayward observations. “Nobody,” he said, “Can anticipate natural variability.”
What about the doctoral degree in aerospace engineering?
As opposed to a degree in mathmatics (Schmit) or Psychology (Lewandowsky) or being a self employed cartoonist (Cook)?
Why is that a conflict of interest?
Is it a conflict when Greenpeace takes money from the Koch brothers?
Is it a conflict when CRU takes money from BP and Shell?
You sound desperate stevo. Can't attack the science so attack the person? In the mean time sun activity is at a low and we are going on close to 19 years without a statistically relevant temperature trend increase. Hmmm maybe you ought to go actually read that paper. Or Svenmark's or Kravchinsky's or Miyahara's or...
14. Green Energy Futures
Green Energy Futures is a multi-media storytelling project that is documenting the clean energy revolution that’s already underway. It tells the stories of green energy pioneers who are moving forward in their homes, businesses and communities.
Gold Sponsor: Shell”
15. World Resources Institute
WRI engages businesses, policymakers, and civil society at the local, national, and international levels to advance transformative solutions that mitigate climate change and help communities adapt to its impacts.
ACKNOWLEDGING OUR DONORS (January 1, 2011 – August 1, 2012 PDF 5MB
…Shell and Shell Foundation…ConocoPhillips Company…”
16. Purdue Solar
Navitas Takes 1st at SEMA 2013
Last week, Purdue Solar Racing took home first place in the Battery Electric division at the 2013 Shell Eco-marathon. The winning run reached an efficiency of 78.1 m/kWh (a miles per gallon equivalency of approximate 2,630MPGe)…”
17. AGU Fall Meeting
9-13 December 2013
Thank You to Our Sponsors
The AGU would like to take the time to thank all of our generous sponsors who support the
2013 Fall Meeting and the events at the meeting.
ExxonMobil…….BP, Chevron…..Mineralogical Society of America…”
18. Science Museum – Atmosphere
About our funders
…exploring climate science gallery and the three-year Climate Changing… programme. Through these ground-breaking projects we invite all our visitors to deepen their understanding of the science behind our changing climate.
We believe that working together with such a wide range of sectors is something that we’ll all need to be able to do in our climate-changing world….
Principal Sponsors: Shell…Siemens…”
1. Climate Research Unit (CRU)
From the late 1970s through to the collapse of oil prices in the late 1980s, CRU received a series of contracts from BP to provide data and advice concerning their exploration operations in the Arctic marginal seas. Working closely with BP’s Cold Regions Group, CRU staff developed a set of detailed sea-ice atlases,
This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
…British Petroleum…Greenpeace International…Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates…Sultanate of Oman…Shell……
2. Sierra Club
TIME – 2 February 2012
Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry
TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking…”
3. Delhi Sustainable Development Summit
[Founded by Teri under Dr. Rajendra Pachauri chairman of the IPCC]
2011: Star Partner – Rockefeller Foundation
2007: Partners – BP
2006: Co-Associates – NTPC [coal and gas power generation] | Function Hosts – BP
2005: Associate – Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, India | Co-Associate Shell
4. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project
Berkeley Earth team members include: Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director……Steven Mosher, Scientist…
Financial Support First Phase (2010)
…Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…
Second Phase (2011)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…
Third Phase (2012)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…Anonymous Foundation ($250,000)…
Fourth Phase (2013)
…The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($100,000)…
$400,000 you say?
Here is what Big oil funds:
200 Climate Campaign Groups All Funded by a Single Source: The Rockefeller Brothers
July 9, 2013
RBF has funded a wide range of organizations, including the Body Shop Foundation to …..
Some of the grant descriptions are telling. For example,
RBF funded the League of Conservation Voters for its work “with unions in the building trades to educate and engage them on global warming issues.”
Breakthrough Technologies for its work with the insurance industry
Here are links to organizations that the Rockefeller Brothers has funded as part of its campaign against Canadian energy and pipelines:
Sustainable Markets Foundation
1Sky Education Fund
Corporate Ethics International
Below, here are links to Rockefeller grantees that, over the past decade, have received more than $500,000 that was specifically ear-marked for climate change-related projects:
American Council on Renewable Energy
Architecture 2030 Inc.
Better World Fund
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Center for American Progress
Center for Climate Strategies
Clean Energy Group
Climate Change Organization
Earth Island Institute
Georgetown Climate Center (Georgetown University)
Local Governments for Sustainability
National Environmental Trust
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Capitalism Solutions
Public Interest Projects
Seventh Generation Advisors
Smart Power Connecticut Inc.
Stichting Triodos Renewable Energy for Development Fund – Netherlands
World Resources Institute
National Religious Partnership for the Environment
Just keep in mind redetermination that reality eventually rules the day. Even for folks such as yourself that are so obviously disconnected from it.
When placing a bet, the best horse to back is the one called ‘Self-interest’ – at least you know he is trying”.
For example, Shell, with its massive gas interests, was caught campaigning against coal fired power, the main competitor of gas in electricity generation.
Arab Oil interests were caught funding a film attacking their competitors – shale oil fracking in America.
And a Russian oil company was exposed funding US anti-carbon green groups.
The Chinese of course are great supporters of green energy as long as it is installed elsewhere – ie they supply the machines and solar panels and then welcome the factories forced from the host country by soaring electricity prices.
Gas, nuclear and hydro power will be the greatest long term beneficiaries of the war on coal. Initially they will be needed to provide base load and back up for intermittent green power like wind and solar. Then as green subsidies are withdrawn to appease angry tax payers, the green play-toys will fail and grown-up generators will step easily into full time electricity production.
Finally, the government bureaucracy and the research grants industry justify their existence by “solving community crises”. They love “The Climate Crisis” because it can be blamed for any weather event anytime, anywhere. It is unlikely to be solved, no matter how many dollars are thrown at it – a problem that does not exist can never be “solved”. And the sinister “Greenhouse Effect”, like any good ghost, is invisible, mysterious in operation, debatable, and allows anyone to produce their own scare story.
On the other hand, everyone calls you an ignorant fool all of the time Redster.
Now we have proof (as if we needed it).
In other Yale news:
It’s Too Cold To Protest Global Warming At Yale
11:10 AM 02/13/2015
Yale anti-fossil fuel campaigners have indefinitely postponed a protest that was set for this weekend due to “unfavorable weather conditions and other logistical issues.”
Fossil Free Yale, a group pushing the university to divest itself from fossil fuels, told the Yale Daily News that frigid, snowy weather set for this weekend will mean their global warming protest will have to be postponed.
FFY’s Mitch Barrow said that “unfavorable weather conditions and other logistical issues, including some cancellations from speakers and performance groups” would mean they would not be able to rally on Global Divestment Day — a day where environmental groups urge institutions like Yale to divest from fossil fuels, like coal, natural gas and oil...
Are global warming skeptics simply ignorant about climate science?
Not so, says a forthcoming paper in the journal Advances in Political Psychology by Yale Professor Dan Kahan. He finds that skeptics score about the same (in fact slightly better) on climate science questions.
The study asked 2,000 respondents nine questions about where they thought scientists stand on climate science.
On average, skeptics got about 4.5 questions correct, whereas manmade warming believers got about 4 questions right.
One question, for instance, asked if scientists believe that warming would “increase the risk of skin cancer.” Skeptics were more likely than believers to know that is false.
Skeptics were also more likely to correctly say that if the North Pole icecap melted, global sea levels would not rise. One can test this with a glass of water and an ice cube – the water level will not change after the ice melts. Antarctic ice melting, however, would increase sea levels because much of it rests on land.
Today you just saw a company in the process of liquidation.
Booker in the Telegraph:
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming....
...Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy...
...Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.
Actually it's not Watt's argument. Watts doesn't make an argument. All he did was republish the press release for the paper.
Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay.
Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.
But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.
Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world's scientists. And in particular by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has driven the greatest and most costly scare in history: the belief that the world is in the grip of an unprecedented warming.