Category Archives: Climategate

More Obama Green Nepotism.

It looks like more greenbacks provided by taxpayer’s hard work have flown into a company named Brightsource, conveniently owned by  Robert Kennedy Jr. and conveniently granted $1.4 billion of your tax dollars by an ex-employee who’s now conveniently a Department of Energy big cheese.

President John F. Kennedy’s nephew, Robert Kennedy, Jr., netted a $1.4 billion bailout for his company, BrightSource, through a loan guarantee issued by a former employee-turned Department of Energy official.

The details of how BrightSource managed to land its ten-figure taxpayer bailout have yet to emerge fully. However, one clue might be found in the person of Sanjay Wagle.

Wagle was one of the principals in Kennedy’s firm who raised money for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. When Obama won the White House, Wagle was installed at the Department of Energy (DOE), advising on energy grants.

From an objective vantage point, investing taxpayer monies in BrightSource was a risky proposition at the time. In 2010, BrightSource, whose largest shareholder is Kennedy’s VantagePoint Partners, was up to its eyes in $1.8 billion of debt obligations and had lost $71.6 million on its paltry $13.5 million of revenue.

It’s amazing how those DOE handed-out taxpayer dollars seem to go to good buddies of Obama isn’t it? Oh well, nothing to see here, move on please. Just another $1.4 billion that will probably go down the tubes never to be seen again ala Solyndra, AKA: More CO2 Insanity.

Source: Big Government

Advertisements

Comments Off on More Obama Green Nepotism.

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, DOE, Energy, Financial, Global Warming, Government, Green Energy, Green Tech, Politics, Solyndra

James Hansen Paid by Green Group

Well, well, isn’t it funny how everyone who doesn’t believe in global warming and who doesn’t genuflect at the sight of Al Gore is accused by the warmers of being paid off by the oil companies or the Koch brothers?

Put the shoe on the other foot and find out global warming’s ‘hot’ scientist Dr. James Hansen is being paid by a green group and we see nothing hitting the fan in the MSM at all. Nothing here to see folks, move on now. If the warmers do it it’s perfectly OK. So, what happened?

So on Friday the Obama administration stopped fighting a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and released documents showing that Hansen was paid $250 an hour by a Canadian law firm for testimony against developing Alberta’s oil sands; income which Hansen does not appear to have disclosed.

$250 an hour? Not bad, we wonder if he got meals, hotel and transportation, too? We also wonder why he didn’t report it as required by law? So who was Hansen testifying for?

A January 20, 2009, document shows that the Canadian law firm Ackroyd LLP retained Hansen to prepare a report “regarding the anticipated greenhouse gas emissions from the Joslyn Oil Sand Mine.”

Ackroyd represents the Oil Sand Environmental Coalition (OSEC), a group fighting to stop oil sand development.Federal government employees are not allowed to accept money for expert testimony in proceedings before a court or agency of the United States. (This took place in Canada FYI).

And what about those reporting requirements? Reporting? Evidently Hansen must have a special exclusion for warmers or something.

It is still unclear how much money Hansen received from Ackroyd, however, since his 2010 financial disclosure form did not list them as a source of income. Neither does his 2009 form. There is also no record of his disclosing any travel expenses related to his 2010 oil sands testimony in Canada.

Of course, we also don’t see any rush from anybody at NASA, GISS, the Justice Department, the State Department or any other department to investigate and if need be prosecute. You probably won’t see anything in the warmer MSM either. Hypocrites!

Source: The Washington Examiner

Comments Off on James Hansen Paid by Green Group

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Financial, Global Warming, Government, NASA

More Flaws with IPCC 2007 Climate Report AR4

IPCC method

It looks like more of those chickens are coming hope to root upon the roost of the United Nations building. Written by real scientists? Real climate experts? Ummm….OK, if you say so. But read this first.

A scathing new expose on the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change — which sets the world’s agenda when it comes to the current state of the climate — claims that its reports have often been written by graduate students with little or no experience in their field of study and whose efforts normally might be barely enough to satisfy grad school requirements. “We’ve been told for the past two decades that ‘the Climate Bible’ was written by the world’s foremost experts,” Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise told FoxNews.com. “But the fact is, you are just not qualified without a doctorate. In academia you aren’t even on the radar at that point.”

Amazing isn’t it? Not only is it amazing that the report appears to be even worse than initially thought, it’s even more amazing that the whole planet is supposed to change our evil CO2 ways because of this report, claimed as written by experts.  So who were some of these so-called “experts?”

  •  One lead author of the 2001 edition was a trainee at the Munich Reinsurance Company in 2000 and lacked a master’s degree while  on the panel. He did not earn a Ph.D. until ten years later.
  • Another lead author in 1994 earned his master’s only two years earlier and had his first academic paper published in 1995.
  • An Australian academic was an assistant author in 2001 and a lead author in 2007 — despite not earning her Ph.D. until 2009.
  • Dutch geography professor Richard Klein has been a lead author for six IPCC reports and in 1997 became a coordinating lead   author. He was promoted to the panel’s most senior role while he was 28 years old — six years prior to completing his PhD.

You can judge for yourself whether the world should spend billions upon billions over this report or if it should be tossed into the trashcan. The book is available at Amazon for less than $5 bucks if you want to read it. Source: Fox News

1 Comment

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, IPCC, United Nations

Another Energy Company Goes Broke!

Yes, the Obama administration has the equivalent of a gardener having a brown thumb. It seems no matter what it touches, it withers and dies. This time it’s $39 million tax dollars out the window.

An energy company that received a $43 million loan guarantee through the same federal program that backed Solyndra has followed the path of the failed solar firm and filed for bankruptcy.

Beacon Power Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Sunday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. The company, which develops energy storage systems based on what are known as “flywheels,” had received the federal guarantee for a 20-megawatt energy storage plant in Stephentown, N.Y., back in August 2010. 

Add this one to the list consisting of Solyndra, Spectra Watt and Evergreen Solar who have also received hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars and have filed for bankruptcy.  They screwed the  taxpayers, too.

The Massachusetts-based company also received $29 million in grants from the Energy Department and the state of Pennsylvania through separate programs for a plant in Hazle Township, Pa.

So, what kind of green jobs did this create (or rather was supposed to create) and at what cost? Let’s do some simple mathematics. Take the above $43 million + the above $29 million and you get a total of $72 million dollars. So how many employees?

When the project was approved, the Energy Department reported that the loan guarantee would help save or create 14 permanent jobs and 20 construction jobs.

If  you take the total of permanent and temporary jobs that is a total of 34 employees. Divide $72 million by 34 and that is an astronomical $2.11 million per job.  Divide the $72 million by the 14 permanent jobs and that’s an even more astronomical $5.14 million per job.

This is why the government should keep their nose out of it. If solar and wind power are such a hot commodity, then venture capitalists would be so eager to pump money into them that government subsidies would not be required. It would be their decision, their money and their risk.

Federal and state governments really have no business making extravagant loans to companies with unproven technology or a manufacturing process that cost so much the Chinese can easily undercut the price. Politics mixing with private industry is a recipe for disaster as proven by these failures.

Warmers, please don’t mention oil and gas subsidies. Those are proven technologies that actually produce something usable by taxpayers and as such, we don’t have a problem with them.

Source: Fox News

3 Comments

Filed under California Green Jobs, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Energy, EPA, Global Warming, Government, Green Energy, Green Tech, Politics

‘Hide the Decline’ – Part Deux

The graph that fooled the world

Here we go again. More questionable warmer data released, which only takes a short period of time to be discredited. Yet more unprecedented, irrefutable proof going down the global warming toilet. That this was touted as the “scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all” is laughable.

From the Daily Mail we get this information:

It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all – the research that, in the words of its director, ‘proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer’.

Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree  centigrade since 1950 and is warming continually. 

Published last week ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, next month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilisation as we know it.

Amazing timing these warmers appear to have . The inconvenient truth is conveniently published a mere week prior to the next global warming cabal with key words and phrases such as irrefutable, stringent and save civilization. So, what’s the problem with this irrefutable evidence?

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no  scientific basis.

No scientific basis? My, what a big surprise! (Not!)

Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to ‘hide the decline’ in rates of global warming.

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

Credibility? Since when do the warmers need credibility? It’s all about smoke & mirrors, obfuscation, BS, and even sometimes blatant lies!

It seems the information was also conveniently released not only before it was ready, but before other parties of the study were even consulted.

But although Prof Curry is the second named author of all four papers, Prof Muller failed to  consult her before deciding to put them on the internet earlier this month, when the peer review process had barely started, and to issue a detailed press release at the same time.

He also briefed selected  journalists individually. ‘It is not how I would have played it,’ Prof Curry said. ‘I was informed only when I got a group email. I think they have made errors and I distance myself from what they did.

‘It would have been smart to consult me.’ She said it was unfortunate that although the Journal of Geophysical Research  had allowed Prof Muller to issue the papers, the reviewers were, under the journal’s policy, forbidden from public comment.

Prof McKittrick added: ‘The fact is that many of the people who are in a position to provide informed criticism of this work are currently bound by confidentiality agreements.

‘For the Berkeley team to have chosen this particular moment to launch a major international publicity blitz is a highly unethical sabotage of the peer review  process.’

It appears to us that this was all conveniently orchestrated to avoid dissent and to ensure the disinformation was released immediately prior to the climate conference in South Africa. Why else would you brief only selected journalists other than to make sure they were journalist who would faithfully put out your disinformation? Why would you bind other participants with confidentiality agreements other than to silence the opposition?

Sounds like more typical CO2 Insanity to us.

Read it all at the Daily Mail and decide for yourself.

3 Comments

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, United Nations

Why Computer Models are Crap

Next time you read an article about global warming that states the computer models predicted something remember this article, which offers proof positive that the computer models used by so-called scientists to predicts unprecedented global warming are crap.

From Scientific American we get this:

When it comes to assigning blame for the current economic doldrums, the quants who build the complicated mathematic financial risk models, and the traders who rely on them, deserve their share of the blame. [See“A Formula For Economic Calamity” in the November 2011 issue]. But what if there were a way to come up with simpler models that perfectly reflected reality? And what if we had perfect financial data to plug into them?

Incredibly, even under those utterly unrealizable conditions, we’d still get bad predictions from models.

That’s right, even a computer model that is “perfect” isn’t worth the electricity used to run it. The problem is calibration. In a nutshell, take a “perfect” model and tweak it any and it is no longer going to predict anything correctly.

The problem, of course, is that while these different versions of the model might all match the historical data, they would in general generate different predictions going forward–and sure enough, his calibrated model produced terrible predictions compared to the “reality” originally generated by the perfect model. Calibration–a standard procedure used by all modelers in all fields, including finance–had rendered a perfect model seriously flawed. Though taken aback, he continued his study, and found that having even tiny flaws in the model or the historical data made the situation far worse. “As far as I can tell, you’d have exactly the same situation with any model that has to be calibrated,” says Carter.

Calibration, tweaking, adjusting, cheating, lying, stealing, or whatever you want to call it, produces crap. Crap financial models or crap climate models, it’s all the same crap.

Note, to reiterate. it doesn’t matter if it agreed with past data, a process called hindcasting, which is a big line you hear from climate modelers, it still comes up with crap predictions! Getting one to agree with the weather in 1900 means nothing according to this article.

The next time you read some horrific article about how global warming is going to make the sea-level rise, cause droughts, floods, and just about anything else you can name including 3-eyed cows and cooties, remember that the climate model used to predict it is crap. Perhaps it was even tweaked to arrive at a preconceived conclusion.

Proof? The computer models used to predict tomorrow’s weather aren’t even right all the time.  So, how can they predict what’s going to happen 20-30-100 years in the future?

Read more details about this at Scientific American.

3 Comments

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, IPCC, NASA, NOAA

Global Warming to Hit NYC in October

Here it comes: The October snow is expected to start late Saturday afternoon and may carry on through the night

Look warmers! It's gonna snow!

Yes, that global warming stuff is certainly hot. On today’s news we can note it’s already snowing in Massachusetts. Colorado had an early snowstorm and Boreal Mountain Resort near Lake Tahoe, California/Nevada, will open up a ski run today.

We now see that New York City will hit by the earliest snow storm since the Civil War. The Civil War ended in 1865. So that’s about 146 years since it’s snowed this early in NYC.

Moreover, it’s predicted that up to a foot of snow could  fall in the region. No doubt many warmer websites will completely ignore this, or blame all that cold air on global warming, which as we all know, is a bunch of hot air.

1 Comment

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Weather