How about another cup of coffee? (Global Warming Conspiracy and Starbucks Cup #289)

June 19, 2013

Encore post from September 17, 2007, and August 2009 — maybe more appropriate today than ever before.

Found this on my coffee cup today (links added here):

The Way I See It #289

So-called “global warming” is just

a secret ploy by wacko tree-

huggers to make America energy

independent, clean our air and

water, improve the fuel efficiency

of our vehicles, kick-start

21st-century industries, and make

our cities safer and more livable.

Don’t let them get away with it!

Chip Giller
Founder of, where
environmentally-minded people
gather online.

Starbucks Coffee Cup, The Way I See It #289 (global warming)

Look! Someone found the same cup I found!

I miss those old Starbucks cups — but then, they killed the Starbucks in our town.  I don’t buy the 100 cups of Starbucks coffee I used to get in a year.



Marxism from Republicans? Sad, but true . . .

July 12, 2011

. . .  Groucho Marxism.

(From Horsefeathers; longer version of entire scene, here.)

The U.S. House of Representatives scheduled a vote today to force light bulb manufacturers to keep manufacturing bulbs the market has rejected — Marxist socialism at its apex! — in order to overturn energy conservation standards signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2007.

ThinkProgress explains:

Lately it seems that the House Republican leadership is against everything that isn’t pre-approved by Big Oil or the Tea Party. Perhaps the most outlandish example of this Groucho Marx approach to public policy is today’s vote on the BULB Act, H.R. 2417. It would repeal the energy efficiency standards for light bulbs established in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, or EISA, P.L. 110-140. It would also prevent California from setting its own light bulb efficiency standards. The original author of the provision is House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (R-MI), who is now supporting the repeal of his own idea after conservatives attacked it along with other clean energy programs.

EISA, with Rep. Upton’s efficiency measure, passed the House in 2007 by a bipartisan vote of 319-100, with support from 49.7 percent of Republicans who voted and 98 percent of Democratic votes. President George W. Bush signed it into law.

Afterwards, Rep. Upton bragged in a press release, “Upton Measure to Upgrade Energy Efficiency Standards for all Light Bulbs Now Law” . . .

Mark Twain observed that it takes just one man of conscience to stand up to a mob and frustrate stupid mob action.  Fred Upton is not that man of conscience, alas.

Meanwhile, PopVox has a poll on the bill.  Go on over there and vote “no,” meaning you wish to keep the conservation standards.

Tip of the old scrub brush to ThinkProgress via Jennsmom.

Annals of global warming: Records from Mauna Loa show continuing rise in atmospheric CO2

March 26, 2011

NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory, NOAA photo, 1982, Cmdr. John Bortniak

NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory, from NOAA At the Ends of the Earth Collection, 1982 NOAA photo by Commander John Bortniak

John Adams observed, and Ronald Reagan was fond of quoting, “Facts are stubborn things . . .”

Here are the facts on atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2):


Monthly CO2 levels since 1960, Mauna Loa Observatory (Scripps Inst of Oceanography)

Mauna Loa Observatory, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD (University of Calfornia-San Diego); CO2 concentrations in parts per million (ppm)

As described at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography site:

Monthly average atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration versus time at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii (20°N, 156°W) where CO2 concentration is in parts per million in the mole fraction (p.p.m.). The curve is a fit to the data based on a stiff spline plus a 4 harmonic fit to the seasonal cycle with a linear gain factor.

Data from Scripps CO2 Program.

For perspective, here’s a chart from Scripps that shows why there is concern over current levels of CO2:

CO2 over the past 420,000 years - Scripps Institution of Oceanography

CO2 over the past 420,000 years - Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Resources, More:

Climate science cranks: Wrong in small things, wrong in all things?

January 23, 2011

Earlier we discussed the political jabs lacking scientific merit at the blogs that have sprung up to harry and heckle climate scientists, especially a relatively new one called, inaptly, “haunting the library.”

The author and commenters have taken to calling Dr. James Hansen “Beijing Jim,” thinking it a cleverly insulting nickname.


James Hansen, at Americans Who Tell the

Portrait of James Hansen for James Hansen, at Americans Who Tell the

I almost regret asking.  Why “Beijing Jim?”

They started it when Hansen wrote an opposite-editorial page piece for the South China Post, urging China to act against global warming anyway, despite the U.S.’s failure to take aggressive-enough action yet.

haunting the library tries to spin the piece as Hansen moving over to China’s side in all issues, a position they seem to think is somehow unpatriotic (and therefore, insulting to Hansen).

Actually, in the article, Hansen doesn’t let China off the hook at all.  It’s a patient, well-aimed call to China to do the right things.  Only by misreporting and misrepresenting what Hansen said can climate science cranks spin it.

James Hansen takes the honorable high road, calling on the world’s most-polluting nations to take action now to save our children’s and grandchildren’s future.  haunting the library issues schoolyard, childish and churlish taunts.

Oh, but Dear Reader, you’re already guessing at the particular intellectual clumsiness I’m getting to, aren’t you?  It’s about that taunting name, “Beijing Jim.”  It’s unfair and undeserved because Hansen represented America well, and honorably.  “Free Enterprise Jim” would be closer to the facts.

It’s also geographically wrong.  South China Morning Post is a Hong Kong newspaper, not Beijing.  Hong Kong is the Chinese outpost of rampant free enterprise, as you know and the rest of the world knows.  Hong Kong is not Beijing.

The climate science cranks at haunting the library don’t know climate science, don’t know newspaper publishing, and flail at geography, too. They’re cranky, too.  Cranky cranks.  Poetic, almost.



January 24, 2011:  Others are watching, too.  Tim Lambert at Deltoid makes gentle correction of an Andrew Bolt column relying on misinformation from hauntingthelibrary.  Good discussion there.

Lens incompetence: Watts Up looks through the wrong end of the telescope

December 27, 2010

The wags and denialists over at Anthony Watts’ joint are up to their old tricks, accusing others of their own errors.  Today it’s a guest post by Bernie Lewin, in which he claims that climate warming was all psychological, a “scare”:

Yet we can find precedents to this science-base scare in many health scares of recent decades, and also in environmental scares since the DDT cancer scare triggered by Silent Spring, politicised by the EDF and legalized by the newly formed EPA. (See Scared to Death which finds a repeating pattern to these science-based scares.)

Woman looking through the wrong end of a telescope

This woman might be corrected; global warming denialists will staunchly insist she knows what she’s doing and doesn’t need YOUR advice.

He fails to even think that Rachel Carson was right.  Lewin demonstrates incompetence at history, law and science, and the first point of the Scout Law, all in one sentence.

So much error.  So little time to correct.

  1. Carson didn’t claim DDT caused cancer. She noted that we create thousands of chemicals that may cause cancer, that cancers were rising in frequency, and that there was no testing of the new substances prior to their marketing.   Was there a DDT/cancer scare?  Lewin doesn’t offer any evidence.  (We had to correct Matt Ridley on this a couple of weeks ago — see his post here.)
  2. EDF (Environmental Defense Fund, now known as Environmental Defense) was on DDT without Carson — suing to stop DDT spraying (for no good reason) on Long Island in 1968.  EDF relied on science that was courtroom ready.  (I had misremembered the year of EDF’s suit in an earlier version of this post; my apologies to the two or three who may have read it.)  EDF’s suits established, on the basis of science, that DDT is an uncontrollable poison in the wild.  Lewin ignores science and law in his off-hand indictment of Carson’s book and ED.
  3. EPA didn’t act against DDT until 1972.  EPA banned DDT use on agricultural crops in the U.S. because DDT kills non-target species and, basically, entire ecosystems.  EPA was specific:  The ban had nothing to do with cancer.  Once again, Lewin ignores history, science and law.

So, in Lewin’s guest post, we see the pattern that continues at Watts’s place — unfair and wrong indictments of science, ignorance of history, little understanding of law.

All while trying to mock scientists:  ‘Of course scientists are almost always wrong,’ Watts’s blog argues, once again.

Watts won’t let me correct his errors there, even though he’s still coddling those who misdescribe Rachel Carson as a mass murderer, while denying he does it himself.  Consequently his readers won’t be alerted to this post because Watts or his minions will edit out the automatic ping his blog gets that this post is here.  Propaganda promoting falsehood can’t stand the sunlight of fact and truth.

Just because there’s a scare doesn’t mean there’s not a reason to be scared.  DDT is a deadly toxin, so long-lived that it almost cannot ever be eradicated from the environment.  It kills everything small, quickly, unless so much of it is used that the small things evolve quickly to be resistant and immune to it.

So, if we are to assume, as Lewin wrote, that the anti-warming bunch is to warming what the campaign against Rachel Carson by the DDT manufacturers was to DDT’s harms, we get a hint of what’s really up at Watts Up:  Any anti-warming claim is a hoax.  Why put it so cryptically, if that’s what they meant to say?

When Lewin looks at the history of DDT and Rachel Carson, he’s looking at the false history, and he draws the wrong conclusions.  Should we trust a guy so sloppy with the facts to be right on anything else?

Another blog, shocked — shocked! — at cold in Argentina in July

August 10, 2010

Unlike the blog discussed in an earlier post at first, this blog seems to understand that it’s winter in South America.  Still, the author can’t understand why record cold in one small spot doesn’t completely negate warming in the rest of the world:  Minnesotans for Global Warming.

One almost expects to find it has sister sites:  Minnesotans Love Cancer, Minnesotans for Child Abuse, and Self-Lobotomies R Us.

Maybe it’s not the concept of climate that confuses these people, but the entire notion of “average global temperature.”  People who spend their entire lives below average, probably expect that’s the way it is in temperatures, too.  (Is that nasty enough for today?  I’m feeling crabby about idiocy.)

Warming deniers surprised by winter

July 27, 2010

Were you writing fiction, you couldn’t make this stuff up.

Another bastion of people misled by the lack of a Hemingway-brand Solid Gold Sh*t Detector™.

Another person proud as heck of her denial of global warming, points to cattle freezing in South America in July as proof that the Earth’s atmosphere is not warming.

At a blog called Frugal Café Blog Zone, “Where it’s chic to be cheap… Conservative social & political commentary, with frugality mixed in,” blogger Vicki McClure Davidson headlined the piece:

“Remember Al Gore’s “Global Warming” Hoax? People & Cattle in South America Are Dying from Extreme Cold in July”

Gee, how to break this news to her?

Vickie, sit down.  This is something you should have learned in geography in junior high:  In the Southern Hemisphere, winter starts on June 21It’s cold in South America in July, because it’s winter in South America in July.

Cold in winter.  They don’t expect it.  These warming denialists provide the evidence those crabs need, who wonder whether there shouldn’t be some sort of “common sense test” required to pass before allowing people to vote, or drive, or have children.

Oh, it gets worse:

Another site picked up the post.  No, seriously.  (Has Anthony Watts seen this yet?)

  • Voting Female [I am convinced that is a sock puppet site designed to insult women; no woman could be that stupid, could she?]
Earth at northern solstice

Earth at northern solstice - Wikimedia image

Stolen e-mails report: Scientists in the clear, science solid

July 7, 2010

So far it’s a shut out against the “skeptics” of global warming.*

From Science Insider (the AAAS breaking news blog):

The fifth and, so far, most thorough major investigation into the published mails from the University of East Angia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has given the CRU a relatively clean bill of health. (See the full report.) The independent inquiry into so-called “Climategate”, instigated by UEA and headed by former civil servant Muir Russell, examined the conduct of the CRU scientists following allegations sparked by the so-called “Climategate” e-mails. It looked at selective use of data, subverting of peer review, and failure to respond fully to requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The report was unequivocal in its backing of the scientists in terms of research integrity, though it did criticize their openness. “Their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt,” it said. In response to the assertion that CRU had withheld data, the report found that it was mostly not theirs to withhold but was easily accessible in public databases. One of the report’s authors, physicist Peter Clarke of the University of Edinburgh in the United Kingdom, told a press briefing today that they were able to download the relevant data “in a few minutes” and then process it in the same way as CRU had done, producing similar final results. “It took a couple of days of code writing,” he said. The authors found no evidence of bias by CRU in its selection of data. Allegations of misuse of tree ring data were also put aside.

Some of the 1000 e-mails that appeared on the Internet suggested that CRU Director Phil Jones had tried to influence peer review of papers he disagreed with and prevented them from being cited by reviews of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

On the subject of peer review, Russell said that expressing “robust opinions [about papers] was typical during peer review.” And after consulting with editors of the IPCC report, the panel concluded that the CRU scientists were “parts of teams and not individuals responsible for the wording of the reports,” Russell says.

Where the CRU scientists did fall down was in their openness to requests for data. “There was a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness,” Russell says. And the report criticizes UEA for failing to recognize its statutory requirements under the FOIA and also the risk to the reputation of the university and to the credibility of U.K. climate science. Panel member James Norton said that “now more than ever scientists need to be open. Scientists don’t own their own data and at most have a temporary lease.”



*  They’ve complained about being called denialists — maybe we should start calling them “gullibles,” especially since they seized on the thin reed of these stolen e-mails to claim that the victimized scientists were the ones who had done something wrong, since they fell for the fourth-grade science project hoax, and since they fell for the Spanish bomb-in-the-mail hoax.

Spanish warming skeptic claims a bomb in the mail; so-called skeptics caught unskeptical

June 25, 2010

This is a story of a hoax.  It may not be an intentional hoax — some of the alleged victims here are victims of their own gullibility —  but it’s a hoax all the same.  In large part, this is how lynch mobs form and operate:

News reports come out of Spain that a guy said he got a bomb in the mail.  No corroboration from the cops, no corroboration from anyone else.  Moreover, the guy who got the bomb accuses his rivals in his work with sending it to him.

Smell a rat?  It’s a bit of a preposterous story on its face — astounding if true, but who could be so stupid as to send a bomb to a rival with a return address, and then admit it?

Climate change so-called skeptics don’t smell a rat.  They’ve blown by the “wonder what the facts are” phase into the “let’s string the culprit up” phrase.

Let them tell the story:

Long time denier that warming occurs or is caused by humans Christopher Horner at Pajamas Media:

Spain’s Dr. Gabriel Calzada — the author of a damning study concluding that Spain’s “green jobs” energy program has been a catastrophic economic failure — was mailed a dismantled bomb on Tuesday by solar energy company Thermotechnic.

Says Calzada:

Before opening it, I called [Thermotechnic] to know what was inside … they answered, it was their answer to my energy pieces.

Dr. Calzada contacted a terrorism expert to handle the package. The expert first performed a scan of the package, then opened it in front of a journalist, Dr. Calzada, and a private security expert.

The terrorism consultant said he had seen this before:

This time you receive unconnected pieces. Next time it can explode in your hands.

Ignore that noise in the background that sounds like a vuvuzela amplified — that’s my Hemingway solid-gold shit detector going off. Or, if you’re a normal human, it may be yours. I’m resetting mine — just a minute.

There. Now let’s think about this: A guy gets a package in the mail. First thing he does is call the sender to see what it is. They tell him it’s a report. So, then he calls his terrorism expert buddy who happens to be close by, and that guy tells him it’s really a dismantled bomb.

How many scientists do you know who do that?

Just a minute, gotta reset the Hemingway again.

So, this is reported not by the major news agencies, but by partisans in the debate — in this case, people who claim that green jobs can’t work, that alternative energy programs are worthless (but please don’t notice the requirement to sacrifice Louisiana to the Blob oil spills). And in the reporting, the culprit admits his felonious actions.

You know, this is not a scenario you could sell to the producers of “Transformers.”

I read it at Watts’s blog first. Over there, they mention the story was published in a Spanish publication, so we’ll have a source to consult. But look at how it’s reported.  Any journalistic “wonder what the other side says?”  Any common sense “wonder if it’s accurate?”

The headline:

Green Energy Company Threatens Economics Professor … with Package of Dismantled Bomb Parts

The story — quoted from Horner (and posted by Charles the Moderator):

The author of a damning study about the failure of Spain’s “green jobs” program — a story broken here at PJM — received the threatening package on Tuesday from solar energy company Thermotechnic.

From Pajamas Media

June 24, 2010 – by Christopher Horner

Spain’s Dr. Gabriel Calzada — the author of a damning study concluding that Spain’s “green jobs” energy program has been a catastrophic economic failure — was mailed a dismantled bomb on Tuesday by solar energy company Thermotechnic.

Says Calzada:

Before opening it, I called [Thermotechnic] to know what was inside … they answered, it was their answer to my energy pieces.

Dr. Calzada contacted a terrorism expert to handle the package. The expert first performed a scan of the package, then opened it in front of a journalist, Dr. Calzada, and a private security expert.

The terrorism consultant said he had seen this before:

This time you receive unconnected pieces. Next time it can explode in your hands.

Dr. Calzada added:

[The terrorism expert] told me that this was a warning.

The bomb threat is just the latest intimidation Dr. Calzada has faced since releasing his report and following up with articles in Expansion (a Spanish paper similar to the Financial Times). A minister from Spain’s Socialist government called the rector of King Juan Carlos University — Dr. Calzada’s employer — seeking Calzada’s ouster. Calzada was not fired, but he was stripped of half of his classes at the university. The school then dropped its accreditation of a summer university program with which Calzada’s think tank — Instituto Juan de Mariana — was associated.

Additionally, the head of Spain’s renewable energy association and the head of its communist trade union wrote opinion pieces in top Spanish newspapers accusing Calzada of being “unpatriotic” — they did not charge him with being incorrect, but of undermining Spain by daring to write the report.

Their reasoning? If the skepticism that Calzada’s revelations prompted were to prevail in the U.S., Spanish industry would face collapse should U.S. subsidies and mandates dry up.

As I have previously reported at PJM (here and here), Spain’s “green jobs” program was repeatedly referenced by President Obama as a model for what he would like to implement in the United States. Following the release of Calzada’s report, Spain’s Socialist government has since acknowledged the debacle — both privately and publicly. This month, Spain’s government instituted massive reductions in subsidies to “renewable” energy sources.

Read the rest of the story here:

On the basis of that report, a skeptic should be saying, “that’s almost unbelievable — where are more facts?” A mob would take it at face value.

How do the readers of WUWT respond?

Comment 1:

The judge who stopped the moratorium has received threats. Zerohedge has an article about Soros.

Comment 2 (from a reader handled “The Monster”):

There is really no other way to look at the situation. The AGW industry has become an organized crime syndicate.

Calzada messed with the Family, and if he keeps it up, he gets to swim wit’ da fishes. Capice?

Comment 3:

And then they wonder why scientist not swallowing the AGW scam are not coming out in the light… those are still dangerous times to speak out, it seams.

Comment 4 — just a minute, I have to reset the Hemingway again — okay:

Blacklists,bombthreats,these are acts of terror and not a peep from MSM !!

You get the idea.  You have to get to comments 10, 11 and 12 before we find anyone with a functioning Hemingway:

Comment 10:

I can’t imagine why the company would put their return address on this present. Seems pretty stupid to me.

Comment 11:

Does nobody see something odd about the claim that a regular commercial firm is sending out simulated bombs in packages under its own name?

This article (on the opinion page, for which Dr Calzada writes) mentions a simulated bomb in the imaginative headline. But the text says it was a fuel (gasoil) filter with a cable. The firm Termotechnics had intended to send a different item.

No mention of police, only Dr Calzada’s own “bomb expert”.

Comment 12:

Missing something. Why were the police not called? Why were anti-terrorist officials not involved? Spain’s no stranger to domestic terrorism, so I don’t understand why this was handled “privately” and wasn’t handled through “official” channels. Maybe there’s a good and rational explanation, and if anyone has one I’d be grateful to understand it.

At this point, we don’t know much; what we have is at best third hand, translated from Spanish.  A skeptic should be wondering, “what’s going on here.”  Those who most patently wear the self-moniker “skeptic” don’t appear, to me, to be very skeptical.

Horner’s article mentions the Spanish newspaper Expansion, which, he says (and I know no better), is a publication much like Financial Times.

(Why is this article published in the opinion pages, if it’s news?  Drat!  There goes the Hemingway again.)

Let’s go see what it says, shall we?

Here’s the article from Expansion, translated with Google’s translator (interesting — Spanish followed by English translation, sentence by sentence):

Gabriel Calzada, EXPANSION regular contributor, was a simulated bomb sent by a photovoltaic company and sought to intimidate their critical articles about solar energy.El miércoles 16 de junio se recibió un paquete en el Instituto Juan de Mariana dirigido a su presidente, Gabriel Calzada. On Wednesday June 16 received a package in the Instituto Juan de Mariana addressed to its president, Gabriel Calzada. Nada le hacía pensar al destinatario que podía tratarse de una amenaza con forma de artefacto casero desmontado. Nothing made him think the recipient might be a threat in the form of explosive device dismantled. Pero como el envío no era esperado desde el think tank decidieron contactar con el remitente por vía telefónica. But as the shipment was not expected from the think tank decided to contact the sender by telephone. Al otro lado del hilo, señala Gabriel Calzada, una empleada de la empresa supo inmediatamente de qué paquete se trataba y contestó sin dudar un segundo que esa “es nuestra respuesta a los artículos sobre energía de Sr. Calzada en Expansión”. At the other end, said Gabriel Calzada, an employee of the company immediately known which package and said it was without doubt a second that this “is our response to the articles on Mr. Calzada energy expansion.”

La forma cuadrada del paquete no hacía pensar de que pudiera tratarse de un documento por lo que Gabriel Calzada, tras consultarlo con el abogado del Instituto, decidió pasarlo por un escáner antes de abrirlo. The square shape of the package did not think it could be a document that Gabriel Calzada, in consultation with counsel for the Institute, decided to pass it through a scanner before opening. El paquete estuvo cerrado hasta que el martes 22, día en que Calzada aprovechó su colaboración semanal como contertulio en el programa de César Vidal ‘Es la Noche de César’, de EsRadio, para pedirle a la empresa de seguridad si podían escanear el paquete. The package was closed until Tuesday 22, the day he used his weekly collaboration Calzada contertulio in the program as Cesar Vidal ‘Caesar’s Night’ by EsRadio, to ask the security company if they could scan the package.

El agente de seguridad privada recomendó no abrirlo tras comprobar que se trataba de dos objetos metálicos difíciles de interpretar. The private security officer advised not to open it after checking that there were two metal objects are difficult to interpret. Pidió ayuda a una persona con más experiencia quien tras un breve visionado de la pantalla del escáner creyó saber de qué se trataba y procedió a abrirlo con cuidado ante la atenta mirada del guarda de seguridad, Lorenzo Ramírez (antiguo redactor de Expansión) y el propio Gabriel Calzada. He hired a more experienced person who, after a brief viewing of the screen of the scanner thought he knew what it was and proceeded to open it carefully under the watchful eye of security guard, Lorenzo Ramirez (former editor of Expansion) and the actual Gabriel Calzada. De la caja salieron un filtro de gasoil y una pieza con rosca que podía adaptarse al filtro. In the box came a diesel filter thread and a piece that could be adapted to the filter.

“Los cuatro nos miramos y pensamos lo mismo”, comenta Gabriel Calzada, “se trataba de una amenaza que podía resumirse en que si seguía dando mi opinión sobre cuestiones energéticas en los medios, la próxima vez podía esperar que las piezas estuvieran ensambladas y me estallaran”. “The four of us and we look the same,” says Gabriel Calzada, “was a threat was summed up that if I kept giving my views on energy issues in media, the next time could be expected that the pieces were assembled and me exploded. ”

El experto en seguridad confirmó lo que pensaban y les contó que no era la primera vez que veía algo así. The security expert confirmed what he thought and told them that was not the first time I saw something like that. Durante algunos años trabajó en el País Vasco dando protección personal a distintas personas y ya había asistido a este tipo de amenazas. For some years he worked in the Basque country giving personal protection to different people and I had attended this type of threat. “Ten cuidado Gabriel, esta vez lo mandan como aviso, la próxima vez te puedes encontrar con un paquete que estalle al abrirlo”. “Beware Gabriel, this time he is sent as a warning, next time you can find a package that explodes when opened.”

Gabriel Calzada dirigió una investigación sobre el coste del experimento renovable español a comienzos del año pasado. Gabriel Calzada conducted an investigation on the cost of renewable experiment Spanish at the beginning of last year. Calzada y su equipo concluyeron que en España nos encontrábamos ante una burbuja de energías renovables que estaba a punto de estallar, que los famosos empleos verdes que según el presidente Obama y el presidente Zapatero nos iban a sacar de la crisis, habían costado de media 570.000 euros y que en realidad por cada empleo verde creado había destruido 2,2 empleos en el resto de la economía. Calzada and his team concluded that in Spain we were dealing with a renewable energy bubble was burst, that the famous green jobs that according to President Obama and President Zapatero were going to get out of the crisis had cost on average 570 000 euros and in fact for every green job created had destroyed 2.2 jobs in the rest of the economy. Las conclusiones del estudio corrieron como la pólvora en EE.UU. The study’s conclusions ran like wildfire in the U.S. donde Calzada participó en algunos de los mayores programas de televisión de cadenas como CNN, FoxNews o Univisión después de que The Economist y Wall Street Journal dedicaran elogiosos editoriales al estudio. Calzada where he participated in some of the major television programs such as CNN, FoxNews or Univision after the Economist and the Wall Street Journal editorial praise devoted to the study.

A finales de mayo de 2009 Miguel Sebastián decidió ponerse al frente de un grupo de trabajo para dar respuesta, siempre indirecta, al estudio de Gabriel Calzada y su equipo ( ver expansión de 30 de mayo de 2009 ) In late May, 2009 Miguel Sebastian decided to take charge of a working group to respond, if indirectly, to the study of Gabriel Calzada and his team ( see expansion of May 30, 2009 )

En diversos medios comenzaron a aparecer falsas noticias que trataban de desprestigiar el estudio afirmando que había sido pagado por Exxon Mobil u otras multinacionales petroleras. In various media began to appear false information trying to discredit the study stating that he had been paid by Exxon Mobil and other oil multinationals. Dos meses después, el Diario Público dedicó un amplio reportaje al éxito del estudio en el que acusaba sin pruebas a Calzada de recibir fondos públicos en el Instituto Juan de Mariana (el Instituto es una de las pocas instituciones que tratan de avivar el debate político sin aceptar dinero público ni de partidos políticos), ser cercano a la Fundación FAES así como a su presidente José María Aznar y tratar de perjudicar a España y su industria. Two months later, the newspaper published an extensive article devoted to the success of the study in which he accused without proof Calzada receiving public funds at the Instituto Juan de Mariana (The Institute is one of the few institutions seeking to revive the political debate without accept public funds or political parties), being close to the FAES Foundation and its president José María Aznar and try to hurt Spain and its industry.

Sin embargo, la campaña de desprestigio, replicada en EEUU por la Fundación de George Soros, no fue tomada muy en serio y el congreso de los EEUU llamó a testificar a Gabriel Calzada seguido poco después por el Senado de ese mismo país que le solicitó la presentación de informes sobre las consecuencias económicas del modelo español de ayuda pública a las energías renovables. However, the campaign to discredit replicated in the U.S. by George Soros Foundation, was not taken very seriously and the U.S. Congress called to testify Gabriel Calzada followed shortly by the Senate in the same country that requested the reporting on the economic consequences of the Spanish model of public support for renewable energy.
Público. Public.

Desde entonces el gobierno español ha boicoteado en dos ocasiones la participación de Gabriel Calzada en foros internacionales. Since then the Spanish government has twice boycotted participation in international forums Gabriel Calzada. La primera ocasión fue el veto del gobierno a su participación en una cumbre hispano-estadounidense convocado por el Congreso estadounidense. The first occasion was the government veto their participation in a Hispanic-American summit convened by the U.S. Congress. Calzada recibió una carta pidiendo disculpas por el incidente por parte de la parte estadounidense. Calzada received a letter apologizing for the incident by the U.S. side. El segundo boicot tuvo lugar a comienzos de 2010 cuando Gabriel Calzada iba a debatir junto a un miembro del gobierno español, un representante de CC.OO. The second boycott took place in early 2010 when Gabriel Calzada would be discussed with a member of the Spanish government, a representative of CC.OO. y uno del la federación europea de sindicatos en un conferencia internacional celebrada en Roma y patrocinada por la Comisión Europea. and one of the European federation of unions in an international conference in Rome sponsored by the European Commission.

Los demás participantes comunicaron a la organización que dejarían de participar si no retiraban al Profesor Gabriel Calzada del programa. Other participants reported that the organization would cease to participate unless they withdrew to Professor Gabriel Calzada of the program. Sin embargo en esta ocasión la organización se negó a aceptar el chantaje y mantuvo a Calzada, motivo por el que a última hora cancelaron su participación los representantes del gobierno, CC.OO. But this time the organization refused to accept the blackmail and kept Calzada, why at the last minute canceled his participation of government representatives, CC.OO. y el sindicato europeo. and the European Union.

Tras más de un año de presión política sobre los autores del estudio, en abril de este año el Ministerio de Industria produjo un documento en el que reproducía y actualizaba varios de los argumentos expuestos en el estudio de Calzada y su equipo. After more than a year of political pressure on the authors of the study, in April this year the Ministry of Industry produced a paper which reproduced and updated several of the arguments in the study of Calzada and his team. El paquete amenazante llega justo cuando el Ministerio de Industria que dirige Miguel Sebastián trata de renegociar las subvenciones a las energías renovables. The threatening package comes as the Ministry of Industry Miguel Sebastián is directed to renegotiate subsidies for renewable energy. A pesar del intento de intimidación, Gabriel Calzada escribe de nuevo hoy en Expansión sobre las tarifas eléctricas. Despite the attempt at intimidation, Gabriel Calzada writes again today Expanding on electricity tariffs.

Okay, I’m turning the Hemingway off.  I can’t stand the constant noise.  But I’m not abandoning all skepticism.

Surely there is more to the story, no?

The story was repeated in Libertad Digital.  That publication had the good sense to do what every reporter ought to do — they called the firm alleged to have sent the alleged bomb. So there’s a second story.  There’s another half to the story.  The whole truth is more than has been reported by too many self-proclaimed skeptics.

Again using Google’s software translator, I found:

The company says solar has never wanted threaten Calzada

Thermotechnic, the solar company under whose forwards received a package  highly suspect Gabriel Calzada, completely denies any connection with this shipment. Pedro Gil, el propietario, lo achaca a un error de mensajería y asegura que siente el mal rato que ha pasado Calzada.  Gil Pedro, the owner, blames the error message and says he feels bad time that has passed Calzada.

DIGITAL FREEDOM Libertad Digital se ha puesto al habla con Pedro Gil, presidente de Termotechnic, que ha negado cualquier tipo de relación con el envío recibido por Gabriel Calzada, el presidente del Instituto Juan de Mariana. Digital Freedom has been able to talk to Pedro Gil, president of Termotechnic, who has denied any connection with the shipment received by Gabriel Calzada, President of the Instituto Juan de Mariana. Según sus propias palabras, “esto ha tenido que ser un error”. In his own words, “this has to be a mistake.”

El empresario navarro ha asegurado que lo único que se había enviado a Calzada era un informe sobre las energías renovables. The employer has secured Navarre only thing that had been sent to Calzada was a report on renewable energy. El problema es que lo que recibió el articulista de Libertad Digital fue un paquete lleno de piezas sueltas sin ningún tipo de nota explicativa. The problem is that what was the writer of Liberty Digital was a package of spare parts without any explanatory note. Cuando llamó a la empresa para preguntar qué había pasado le respondieron que eso era “una respuesta a su informe sobre las renovables”. When she called the company and ask what had happened he replied that it was “a response to its report on renewables.”

En ese momento, Calzada interpretó el hecho como una amenaza, algo que Gil niega. At that time, Calzada interpreted the incident as a threat, something that Gil dispute. De esta manera, hay dos versiones para lo sucedido: o bien hubo un simple error por parte de la empresa de mensajería o bien un cambio realizado por alguien que quisiera gastarle una mala pasada a Calzada a costa de esta empresa. Thus there are two versions of what happened: either there was a simple mistake by the courier company or a change made by someone who wanted to spend a dirty trick on Calzada at the expense of this company.

En este sentido, el presidente del Instituto Juan de Mariana ha confirmado que ha hablado con Pedro Gil y que éste le ha dado su palabra de que no hay ninguna responsabilidad por parte de la empresa. In this sense, the president of the Instituto Juan de Mariana has confirmed he has talked with Pedro Gil and it has given his word that there is no liability on the part of the company. Gil le ha transmitido a Calzada su preocupación por las molestias que le haya podido ocasionar, puesto que comprende el desconcierto que tuvo el receptor del envío cuando vio cuál era su contenido. Gil Calzada has been forwarded to concerned about the inconvenience we may have caused, because he understands the confusion that the receiver of the shipment when he saw what was its content.

Gil ha reiterado a Libertad Digital que es “un empresario honrando de 59 años” y que nunca haría algo así. Gil has repeatedly told ABC News it was “a businessman honored for 59 years” and would never do something like that. También ha pedido que quede claro que no hay relación entre lo recibido por Calzada y lo que él quería enviarle. It has also asked to make clear that there is no relationship between Calzada and received what he wanted to send.

Mixup at the courier company? Hoax?

In any case, the story that a think tank would be sending bombs to people in Spain makes little sense.  Spain is a nation long wracked by terrorists both foreign and domestic.  Bomb-senders go to jail in Spain.

Do you remember just a couple of weeks ago that several of these same self-proclaimed were taken in by a claim that fourth grade science project in Beeville, Texas, had disproven the hypothesis of global warming?

Do any of those guys know what Santayana said?

The story indicates that Gabriel Calzada got a package that was not the report the sender, Thermotechnic, intended to send.

From there, it’s a leap to imagine that Thermotechnic intended to send a bomb of any sort; there is no evidence apparent from anyone, anywhere, that such an event occurred.

Gullibles assumed the most fantastic, however.

The fantastic story has been denied by Thermotechnic.  Why aren’t the “warming skeptics” reporting the denial?  If a half-truth is a whole lie, these people have a lot of explaining to do, and apologies to render.  Forrest Gump might advise that a skeptic is as a skeptic does.

Commenters on Horner’s article at Pajamas Media and WUWT wonder why more major news outlets are not covering this story.  One reason appears to be that no police report was filed — a police report on a bomb sent to an academic would be news.  Can you think of other reasons it hasn’t gotten coverage?

Remember the famous Sherlock Holmes example of the dog that didn’t bark in the night.  Here we have skeptics who aren’t skeptical.  Hoax.

Wall of Shame:  Outlets that reported only half the story, and not the denial

In addition to Watts Up and Horner at Pajamas Media, it’s a too-long list of people who should know better:

Prize quote: “Yes. AB’s blog is packed with skeptics. The sort that are born every minute. The only exception seems to have been poster “george”, who bothered to google it.”

Honor roll:

Warn others of the hoax:

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

Annals of global warming: March 2010, warmest March ever

April 20, 2010

NOAA's tracking of temperature change from 1971-2000 base, for March 2010

From NOAA, released April 15, 2010

Global warming slowed or stopped?  Let’s look at the facts:

NOAA: Global Temps Push Last Month to Hottest March on Record

April 15, 2010

The world’s combined global land and ocean surface temperature made last month the warmest March on record, according to NOAA. Taken separately, average ocean temperatures were the warmest for any March and the global land surface was the fourth warmest for any March on record. Additionally, the planet has seen the fourth warmest January – March period on record.

NOAA’s (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) report points out — again — that local weather is not world climate:

  • The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for March 2010 was the warmest on record at 56.3°F (13.5°C), which is 1.39°F (0.77°C) above the 20th century average of 54.9°F (12.7°C).
  • The worldwide ocean surface temperature was the highest for any March on record –1.01°F (0.56°C) above the 20th century average of 60.7°F (15.9°C).
  • Separately, the global land surface temperature was 2.45°F (1.36°C) above the 20th century average of 40.8 °F (5.0°C) — the fourth warmest on record. Warmer-than-normal conditions dominated the globe, especially in northern Africa, South Asia and Canada. Cooler-than-normal regions included Mongolia and eastern Russia, northern and western Europe, Mexico, northern Australia, western Alaska and the southeastern United State

News continues to roll in about the investigations of the stealing of e-mails from England’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU), and the news is that the scientists who documented global warming were accurate and honest.  Alas, such reports do not slow the anti-science denialist mob provocateurs.

So, we have assurance that the scientists are honest and hardworking.  Their hard work shows the planet warming, and the most likely proximate cause of the warming is human-caused effluents.

Did your newspaper cover the story?  How will denialists react?  Will anyone really notice?

Parliament’s investigation: Stolen e-mails reveal no wrong-doing by climate scientists

March 31, 2010

As Galileo might have said, “Still the planet warms.”

A committee of England’s Parliament released its report on Hadley Climate Research Unit’s (CRU) stolen e-mails earlier today.  The reports you heard that the scientific case showing global warming with human causation had died, were exaggerated, significantly in error, and hoaxes themselves.

The report comes from the House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee.  Press release with links and previous releases from the Committee, below:

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

Report publishedThe Committee published ‘The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia‘, HC 387-I, its Eighth Report of Session 2009-10, on Wednesday 31 March 2010. Volume II, the oral and written evidence, was published the same day.


The Science and Technology Committee today publishes its report on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The Committee calls for the climate science community to become more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies.

Phil Willis MP, Committee Chair, said:

“Climate science is a matter of global importance. On the basis of the science, governments across the world will be spending trillions of pounds on climate change mitigation. The quality of the science therefore has to be irreproachable. What this inquiry revealed was that climate scientists need to take steps to make available all the data that support their work and full methodological workings, including their computer codes. Had both been available, many of the problems at CRU could have been avoided.”

The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.

On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails—”trick” and “hiding the decline”—the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.

Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.

The Committee found no reason in this inquiry to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”. But this was not an inquiry into the science produced by CRU and it will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel, announced by the University on 22 March, to determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built.

On the mishandling of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests, the Committee considers that much of the responsibility should lie with the University, not CRU. The leaked e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics. The failure of the University to grasp fully the potential damage this could do and did was regrettable. The University needs to re-assess how it can support academics whose expertise in FoI requests is limited.

Committee announcementOn 22 January the Science and Technology Committee announced an inquiry into the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.  Commenting on the material which the Committee has received since the announcement the Chairman, Phil Willis MP, said:

The Committee has been receiving a steady stream of contributions to the inquiry, for which it is grateful.  I would like to take this opportunity to emphasise that the focus of the inquiry is the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research and the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA.  It is not an inquiry into global warming. In the time remaining before the General Election the Committee would not have time to carry out such an inquiry.

Terms of Reference
The Science and Technology Committee today announces an inquiry into the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). The Committee has agreed to examine and invite written submissions on three questions:—What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

—Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate (see below)?

—How independent are the other two international data sets?


On 1 December 2009 Phil Willis, Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, wrote to Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor of UEA following the considerable press coverage of the data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The coverage alleged that data may have been manipulated or deleted in order to produce evidence on global warming. On 3 December the UEA announced an Independent Review into the allegations to be headed by Sir Muir Russell.

The Independent Review will:

1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.

2. Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.

3. Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data.

4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds .


The Committee invited written submissions from interested parties on the three questions set out above by  Wednesday 10 February. The deadline has now passed.

Written correspondence

10 December 2009

Letter from the Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia to the Chairman of the Committee

Oral evidencePrevious session:

Monday 1 March 2010
The Rt Hon the Lord Lawson of Blaby, Chairman, and Dr Benny Peiser, Director, Global Warming Policy Foundation; Richard Thomas CBE, former Information Commissioner; Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor, University of East Anglia and Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit; Sir Muir Russell, Head of the Independent Climate Change E-Mails Review; Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Julia Slingo OBE, Chief Scientist, Met Office, and Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientist, Defra

Press notices31/03/10 Report published
22/01/10 Inquiry announced

Tip of the old scrub brush to P. Z. Myers at Pharyngula and Watching the Deniers.


Update March 31, 20101: Is this a surprise?  Contrarians, dissenters and deniers say the report errs.

Update April 5, 2010: A little slower than I had imagined, Watts Up With That denies the accuracy of the report — but the denial is a doozy of denialist argument from authority.  It’s a “guest editorial” by S. Fred Singer. Among other things, Singer’s piece reveals why we don’t let partisan politicians run investigations.  He’s miffed because the investigation didn’t give Singer, nor any other denialist, a chance to malign Hadley CRU.  In listing reasons to put fingers in his ears and not listen, Singer said of the House of Commons report, “It did not take direct testimony from scientifically competent skeptics.” There’s no good reason Commons should have take direct testimony from “scientifically competent skeptics,” it wasn’t a news article where false balance was desired.  Instead, the question was whether Hadley’s scientists had done anything wrong.  Singer can’t know, since he has no direct involvement in Hadley’s work, nor would the biased claims of a denialist be able to shed any more light.  Perhaps critically, Singer can’t know whether the Commons committee took direct testimony from claimed skeptics or not.  That the report doesn’t mention the claims doesn’t mean the question wasn’t raised.   It means that in the end, it wasn’t relevant, and not supported by the facts.

Update April 6, 2010: Singer’s in error.  McIntyre has his say in Appendix 10 of the report.  How many other contrarians, denialists and self-proclaimed “skeptics” are in the report?

Libertarians for junk science

February 21, 2010

Yeah, I agree — but ask yourself, you who call yourselves “libertarian” or “skeptic,” why you’re not asking the same questions?

From the Murph Report, “Libertarians for junk science.”  From a guy named Kevin Carson, a self-described anarchist — and voice in the wilderness.

He discusses the unthinking acceptance political libertarians and conservatives give to all stories against  doing something about global warming, and about DDT’s problems.

Another warming contrarian who can’t/won’t shoot straight

February 12, 2010

Joanne Nova is, I gather, a former television personality in Australia now blogging away against science and the study of climate change at JoNova.  Here’s how far off the track she is:  She’s been sucked in by Monckton,  as some great scientist and hero — he whose biggest achievements are to call scientists “bedwetters” and attack the reputations of famous dead women (what is it about Monckton and dead women?).

Her latest post is a hoot. She’s claiming that the case for global warming is coming apart.  She illustrates it with this PhotoShop™ masterpiece (note the “JoNova” in the lower lefthand corner, and note it well):

JoNova's PhotoShop of Glen Canyon Dam for an article on wildly inaccurate claims about climate change; original photo copyright by Wild Nature Images.

JoNova defaces photo of Glen Canyon Dam. Original photo copyright by Wild Nature Images.

Glen Canyon Dam poses problems for serious advocates of environnmental protection for many reasons, not the least being the death of Glen Canyon.  This dam represents one of the greatest losses of the environmental movement.  That’s not why Nova chose the photos, I’m sure — I’d be surprised if she could find Glen Canyon on a map, and I’m all but certain she’s clueless about the controversy about the dam (don’t even wonder whether she’s ever read Ed Abbey).

Regardless where one stands on the issues around Glen Canyon Dam, one cannot look at this photo without seeing the white stripe from the water behind the dam, running about 50 feet up the canyon walls.

Check out the original, copyrighted photo here, at (and maybe buy a copy — it’s a great photo of the dam, Lake Powell and the area; no bluer sky anywhere).  I presume that, even with the huge “JoNova” on it, Nova will allow free duplication of her original work; but why didn’t she credit the guy who took the photo (Ron Niebrugge) and the people who put it on the internet for her (  Update:  Nova is giving credit, now.

The original, without comment, is at once more beautiful, more awe-striking, and more accurate a portrayal of the effects of climate than Nova’s doctored version:

Glen Canyon Dam - photo by Ron Niebrugge, at

Glen Canyon Dam, photo by Ron Niebrugge, at Displayed here with express written permission.

See, climate change is thought to be one of the culprits for that white line. Glen Canyon Dam is in straits right now, as is the Colorado River Compact that created the legal justification for constructing the dam, because precipitation in the mountains where the Colorado River is born has fallen dramatically in the past couple of decades — and Lake Powell has shrunk to a vestige of its former self, of its planned extent, of the extent hoped for in cooler times.

Lake Powell's drop, circa 2008, photo by Marco Ammannati via National Parks Traveler

Lake Powell's drop, circa 2008, photo by Marco Ammannati via National Parks Traveler. Caption from National Parks Traveler: "At Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, years of drought, possibly an indicator of climate change, have revealed Lake Powell's bathtub walls. Spring runoff, however, could soon make those bathtub walls vanish."

JoNova uses a photograph showing the harms of climate change, to claim that climate change does not occur.

Is this the stupidest anti-climate change statement ever made?

Offer your candidates for dumber or stupider claims below.  It’s time we started counting and cataloging.


MSM understand dangers of warming

February 1, 2010

Editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, another of America’s great legacy of great newspapers:

The decade that ended in 2009 was the warmest on record, NASA reported earlier this month. It displaced the decade of the 1990s as the warmest ever. The 1990s displaced the 1980s.

Last year was the second-warmest since 1880, when modern temperature measurements began. The warmest year on record was 2005. All of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998. Perhaps you’re starting to see a pattern.

Tip of the old scrub brush to Open Mind, who also notes that the last decade was the warmest ever.

Chinese government behind “climategate” hacking?

January 1, 2010

Conspiracy fans — a category which appears to include almost all climate change denialists — won’t like the news from Planet Green’s “Planet 100.”  This little news show claims evidence that China was the source of the hacking of the University of East Anglia’s climate related e-mails.

Why won’t the denialists like it?  They won’t like it because it makes sense:  Who stood to profit from embarrassing scientists just before the Copenhagen meetings?  China, who wished to avoid any binding agreements, would gain simply by sowing confusion.

Evidence is pretty thin, but for the first time since the hacked e-mails were published, there’s a plausible motive.   Also, the source is also not wholly pristine or reputable in science stuff — the Daily Mail of London, which specializes in gossipy tabloid news.  Watch that space.

P.S.  — Don’t miss the squid invasion story in the same newscast.


%d bloggers like this: