NC Media Watch

Global warming or cooling - depends where you start on the graph.

Russ Steele

David Lappi is a geologist from Alaska and he sent Jo Nova this graphic of temperatures taken from the Greenland GISP2 Ice Cores for the last 10,000 years. Details here.




It appears that the world has been a little warmer in the past, with huge swings in temperature, but the over all trend is cooling. Interglacial periods usually last 10,000 to 12,000 years and we are coming to the end of the current interglacial period.  So our little warming, shown in red,  does not look that significant. 

Tom McClintock in National Journal's Top 10 Conservatives

Russ Steele

A local Nevada County blogger has listed Congressman Tom McClintock environmental score here.  I discovered that Tom McClintock is also in the National Journal's Top Ten  Most Conservative House GOPers. 

The 10 Most Liberal House Dems    Most Conservative House GOPers
1. Rush Holt (D-NJ)                  1. Trent Franks (R-AZ)
1. Gwen Moore (D-WI)              1. Doug Lamborn (R-CO)
1. John Olver (D-MA)                1. Randy Neugebaurer (R-TX)
1. Linda Sanchez (D-CA)           1. Pete Olson (R-TX)
1. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)          1. John Shadegg (R-AZ)
1. Louise Slaughter (D-NY)        1. Mac Thornberry (R-TX)
1. Mel Watt (D-NC)                   7. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
1. Henry Waxman (D-CA)           8. Mike Pence (R-IN)
9. Kathy Castor (D-FL)               9. Steve King (R-IA)
10. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL)       9. Tom McClintock (R-CA)

Given the Tea Party's drive toward conservatism, I would say that Comgressman McClintock is in good position for re-election.  Yes, I know that Nevada County voted for the liberal/progressive candidate during the last congressional election, but my guess it will not be the case this time, even with a local candidate, Ben Emery of Nevada City running for California’s 4th District race against Tom McClintock.

Oops - Healthcare Summit more damage than help (Update 02-27-10)

Russ Steele

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That matches the lowest level of total approval yet measured for this President. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.

The second day of the rolling average is in and the results were down. What will the third day bring?

Want to guess how succesful the Tea Party movement has become(edited)?

Russ Steele

They say that emulation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I think this is more than flattery, it is fear of success in the market place of political power.  The other side, the promoters of big government, have started the Coffee Party as an alternative to the Tea Party.  Here is a link to the Coffee Party web site and mission statement.

The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.

We now have an indicator how successful the Tea Party movement really is, big government has started an alternative. They are fearful of the Tea Parties and have started a counter campaign to "hold accountable those who obstruct them."  Now just who might that obstruction be -- Tea Party?

H/T to Jeff Pelline for the tip on Coffee Party (

Climate Scientists are looking for redemption, but it will be long climb back

Russ Steele

Here is the problem for climate scientist and the politicians that fund them. The public no longer trusts them and the scare tactics they are using to herd the sheeple into compliance with the will of the carbon cult politicians.  Look at this graphic and you can see the trust evaporating.


Dr. Judith Curry, a climatologist,  published and open letter on restoring the credibility of climate scientist on Watts Up With That. Willis Eschenbach wrote a reply to Dr. Curry letter on rebuilding the lost trust here, starting with a digest of her remarks, which he then translated into an elevator speech of her position:

Willis's elevator speech of Judith’s post:

Climategate has destroyed the public trust in climate science. Initially skepticism was funded by big oil. Then a climate auditing movement sprang up. They were able to bring the climate establishment to its knees because people trusted them. Public and policy makers don’t understand the truth as presented by the IPCC. To rebuild trust, climate scientists need to better communicate their ideas to the public, particularly regarding uncertainty. The blogosphere can be valuable in this regard.

OK, now what’s wrong with Judith’s picture?

Willis's reply is a MUST READ, so I am posting it in total:

Policy Statement Updated (02-25-10)

Russ Steele

I have updated my posting and comment policy statement. The link is in the left sidebar. Any direct references to my family in the comments will not be tolerated.  Please review this revised statement.

Peak OIl Update: New coal to oil process

Russ Steele

Researcher's in Texas say they have found a way of cutting the cost of producing gasoline by two thirds, taking advantage of the lowest grade of coal available.

A new refining process being perfected at the University of Texas at Arlington can turn low-cost lignite coal, also known as brown coal, into oil at a fraction of the cost of importing crude oil from abroad.

When UT started the process it produced uneconomical $17,000 a barrel oil. Today, the cost is $28.84 a barrel, less than half the cost of oil today which is near 80/barrel.

Canada has major deposits of lignite coal in Southern Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, though only the Saskatchewan deposits are currently being mined.

The University of Texas hopes to license their technology in the next few months and start building the first micro-refineries to produce the cheaper oil in the next year.

More details here. The folks at the APPLE Center for Sustainable Living, may want to take note as they prepare for a post oil world, it does not look like our source of oil is going to vanish any time in the near future.  Technology always finds a way!

KQED Climate Watch Survey Continues

Russ Steele

This is a follow up post to my original post here.

KQED is continuing their survey on American's attitudes toward global warming in collaboration with the Yale Project on Climate Change and the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. As you can see from this graphic, attitudes are changing.



KQED reports despite a drop in concern about climate change, majorities in all six groups say that developing sources of clean energy should be a priority for the US government.  I support the development of clean energy, but real solutions are 20-30 years away.  Details in a Wall Street Journal special section The Long Road to an Alternative-Energy Future (Monday, February 22, 2010)

You can go to the KQED Climate Watch blog and take the  "A Matter of Degree" survey to see which of the "Six Americas" resonates most with your viewpoint. Who would have thought I am a dismissive?

EPA Claims they have the real data, and do not need the phony IPCC data

Russ Steele

In answering Senator Jim Inhofe question about the use of the IPCC reports, the"gold standard for climate change legislation" the EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said the EPA has US data that supports global warming, so there was no need for the IPCC data. Really?

According to NOAA/NCDC the US is warming at 0.69oC/century, based on their adjusted temperatures.  However, they will not reveal the computer code  and the decision process they use to make those adjustments,  so we can not determine what fudge factors the NCDC might be using.  We learned about the CRU fudge factors by studying the computer code.

The American Thinker has an interesting analysis this morning of what those factors might be by Edward R. Long a retired NASA scientist.  He concludes in A Pending American Temperaturegate:

1) The rate of increase for rural locations, based on as-measured (raw) values, is small  (if not, in effect, zero) at 0.11 oC/century.

2) There is definitely a UHIE in that the urban raw data has a rate of increase of 0.72oC/century. This tells us that man has caused warming in urban locations. This finding should not surprise anyone. On the other hand, because the rural value is 15% of the urban value, the UHIE has not caused warming in the rural locations, and it certainly has not caused a global sense of warming other than the aspect that the urban location values when averaged with the rural values produce an average increase which is larger than that of the rural alone.

3) The rural + urban value for the adjusted data, 0.65oC/century, is still less than the 0.69oC/century published by the NCDC. Thus, likely, there are more urban than rural sites used by the NCDC. 

4) And this is the "Temperaturegate" aspect: The NCDC's massaging -- they call it "adjusting" -- has resulted in an increase in the rural values, from a raw value of 0.11oC/century to an adjusted value of 0.58oC/century, and no change in the urban values. That is, the NCDC's treatment has forced the rural value to look more like that of the urban. This is the exact opposite of any rational consideration, given the growth of the sizes of and activities within urban locations, unless deception is the goal.

Full article is here. If this is the data that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is planning on using, they might want to reconsider the source. Bring on "Temperaturegate"

EPA off the IPCC Gold Standard Updated( 02-23-10@4:59)

Russ Steele

Senator Jim Inhofe, the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has a sneak-peek into a major new Senate report on his Committee's investigation into the scandal commonly known as Climategate.

His opening remarks at the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing:



During the hearing he asks EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson if she and the EPA thinks the IPCC Report is still the "gold standard" for climate change legislation. She refused to answer the question.  

Pajamas Media has a preview of the report which calls for Al Gore to come before the  Committee to defend his video on global warming here.

I will update this post as the hearing detail emerge.

Update #1( 02-23-10@4:59)  Charlie Martin at Pajamas Media has Breaking News: Senator Barbara Boxer and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson Throw IPCC Under the Bus

Both Boxer and Jackson appeared to be trying to distance the EPA from the IPCC report. Boxer said:

In my opening statement, I didn’t quote one international scientist or IPCC report. … We are quoting the American scientific community here.

When Inhofe directly asked Jackson if she still considered the IPCC report the “gold standard,” she answered:

The primary focus of the endangerment finding was on climate threat risks in this country.

Jackson also noted:

[The errors Inhofe had presented were] international events. The information on the glaciers and other events doesn’t weaken … the evidence we considered [to make the Endangerment Finding on CO2.]

The EPA has specifically cited the IPCC AR4 report as the primary source from which it drew information to make the Endangerment Finding on CO2 as a pollutant. In the past, the worldwide nature of the climate changes, and of the data, had been cited as one of the reasons for using the IPCC report, but now it appeared that Jackson was trying to separate the Endangerment Finding from the IPCC.