Sunday, June 10, 2018

Turncoat NASA chief says he changed mind about climate change because he 'read a lot’

This is a good example of regulatory capture -- when the people being regulated win over their supervisor to their viewpoint.  It happens all the time.  He looks a bit of a Shlemiel anyway so was probably not hard to capture

Another reason why he was quickly captured probably is that he knows nothing about science.  In justifying himself, Bridenstine referred to "The Science" as having convinced him. Whenever anybody  talks vaguely about "The Science" as his justification for believing in global warming that is a sure sign that he in fact knows nothing about the issues involved.  He is just appealing to authority, which is almost always a dumb thing to do.

So it is no surprise that his only postgrad degree is an MBA, a singularly useless piece of paper.  There is no MBA science.  An MBA is just a grab bag of ideas from other disciplines and 40 Years Of Data Show The MBA Effectively Does Nothing -- It Has No Impact.  Success in business is all about handling people and you have either got that or you haven't

I have read a number of comments from skeptics about Bridenstine's poorly articulated views and their consensus is that Bridenstine wanted to be captured. He is a relatively young 42 and he wants to be accepted by the Green/Left establishment with a view to his future career when Trump has left the scene.  We have a term for that in Australia:  He is a "crawler".  To Australians, a crawler is the lowest of the low

NASA chief says he changed mind about climate change because he 'read a lot’

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine says he changed his mind on the existence of man-made climate change because he “read a lot.”

“I heard a lot of experts, and I read a lot,” Bridenstine told The Washington Post on Tuesday. “I came to the conclusion myself that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that we've put a lot of it into the atmosphere and therefore we have contributed to the global warming that we've seen. And we've done it in really significant ways.”

The former congressman from Oklahoma had long denied the scientific consensus on climate change and said in a 2013 speech on the House floor that "global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago."

In May, Bridenstine first announced publicly that he now believes human activity is the main cause of climate change.

“The National Climate Assessment that includes NASA, and it includes the Department of Energy and it includes NOAA, has clearly stated it is extremely likely — is the language they use — that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming,” he said at a Senate Appropriations Committee subpanel's hearing last month.

President Trump and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt have not made similar pronouncements, however.


The Neurobiology of Climate Change Denial

This is a fun article so has already been widely noted.  So I don't think I will be letting the cat out of the bag if I report that as soon as I saw the reference to the work of Lewandowsky in the first paragraph I smelt a rat.  Lewandoski would be in the running to get first prize for the worst bit of survey research ever done.  I don't have enough information to diagnose what his problem is but it is clearly a big one.

But do read the whole of the article linked below  It is VERY reminiscent of a lot of brain-function studies coming from Leftist psychologists (e.g. Hibbing)

Much work has already been undertaken to establish the cognitive foundation for the irrationality of climate change denial. Of particular note are the studies undertaken by Lewandowsky, Kahneman, Shapiro and O’Conner, identifying the many cognitive biases that invalidate arguments put forward by those who profess scepticism in the face of the scientific evidence. However, it is not until recently that neuroscientists have turned their attention to the subject of climate change science denial in order to determine whether there are any fundamental neurological indicators that may be used as predictors of such pathological thinking strategies.......


Vegans spreading the word about their lifestyle damage endangered PLANTS with their graffiti

Environmentalists have accused vegans of killing endangered cress in a row over an anti-meat graffiti stunt.

Meat-free campaigners daubed the words 'Go Vegan' in huge letters on a rock face in the Avon Gorge near Bristol this week.

But the move has been slammed by conservation experts at the National Trust, who say the rock is home to rare plants, including rock cress, which may have been killed or damaged by the thick masonry paint.

The 'Go Vegan' message is clearly visible from across the gorge on Bridge Valley Road and appears to be either signed or a message to a 'Ned', 'Ryan' and 'Ash'.

The National Trust's local countryside manager Lisa Topham hit out at the irresponsible move.

She said: 'The cracks in that rock are home to the exceptionally rare Bristol Rock Cress which grows in crevices of exposed rock faces.

'The people who climbed the rock face are bound to have trampled the plants and even painted them. What they have done there isn't green in any way.'

Ms Topham added: 'We can't risk causing damage ourselves, so we can't use chemicals to remove the paint.

'Using a blaster to remove it still risks the paint filling the crevices where these rare plants live.

'The only other option is painting over it - but that creates a blank canvas and we'd still rather not have anybody up on the rock face for any reason.'

The area is a National Nature Reserve, Site of Special Scientific Interest and Special Area of Conservation.

Ms Topham said: 'The woods and the edge of the gorge are terribly important. They are home to several species which are not found anywhere else in the world - including the rock cress.

'It is probably the richest site for Whitebeams in the world with some very rare trees only found in Leigh Woods.

'We want people to feel it is their woods and come and enjoy it - but we also need people to understand it is fragile and to help us look after the place.'


Cost-Benefit Reform at the EPA

Barack Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency jammed through an average of 565 new rules each year during the Obama Presidency, imposing the highest regulatory costs of any agency. It pulled off this regulatory spree in part by gaming cost-benefit analysis to downplay the consequences of its major environmental rules. The Trump Administration has already rolled back some of this overregulation, and now Administrator Scott Pruitt wants to stop the EPA’s numerical shenanigans, too.

On Thursday the EPA will take the first step toward a comprehensive cost-benefit reform by issuing an advance notice of proposed rule-making. After weighing public input, EPA will propose a rule establishing an agency-wide standard for how regulations are assessed. The reform would make it easier for Americans and their elected representatives to see whether more regulation is truly justifiable.

The EPA has a statutory obligation to look at the costs and benefits of many proposed rules. That responsibility has been reinforced by executive orders and court rulings. But while all three branches of government have supported such assessments, they leave the EPA broad discretion. Enter the Obama Administration, which saw the chance to add additional considerations to the cost-benefit equation.

By introducing “social costs” and “social benefits,” the EPA began factoring in speculation about how regulatory inaction would affect everything from rising sea levels to pediatric asthma. EPA optimists even included their guesses about how domestic regulations could have a global impact. Meanwhile, the agency ignored best practices from the Office of Management and Budget, juking the numbers to raise the cost of carbon emissions.

This proved as politically useful as it was scientifically imprecise. Months before introducing the Clean Power Plan, the EPA suddenly raised the social cost of a ton of carbon emissions to an average of $36 from $21. Before it embarked on new oil and gas regulations, the EPA put the social cost of methane at an average of $1,100 per ton.

At White House direction, the Trump EPA recalculated those figures last year to include only demonstrable domestic benefits. The social cost estimates dropped to an average of $5 per ton of carbon and $150 per ton of methane. That made a big difference in the cost-benefit analysis. While the Obama Administration claimed the Clean Power Plan would yield up to $43 billion in net benefits by 2030, the Trump EPA concluded it would carry a $13 billion net cost.

Another statistical sleight of hand involves the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. The regulation’s stated purpose was to reduce mercury pollution, but the EPA added the rule’s potential to decrease dust. That was irrelevant to the central question of whether it was worthwhile to regulate mercury as proposed. But without the erroneous co-benefits, EPA would find such regulations tougher to justify.

On his first day in office, Mr. Pruitt said his goal was to protect the environment and the economy, and that “we don’t have to choose between the two.” His many ethics controversies have distracted from that mission, but this cost-benefit reform is a welcome return.

The regulatory specifics will be hashed out in the coming months, but there’s real potential here to curb the distortions that mask bad policy. If Mr. Pruitt succeeds, future cost-benefit analyses will be more consistent and transparent. The reform would help to ensure regulation is based on sound scientific analysis instead of wishful bureaucratic thinking.


Energy policy as shameful as the Soviet’s

“I told myself it was beneath my dignity to arrest a man for pilfering firewood. But nothing ordered by the party is beneath the dignity of any man, and the party was right: One man desperate for a bit of fuel is pathetic. Five million people desperate for fuel will destroy a city.’’

Communist General Yevgraf Zhivago, Dr Zhivago, (film), 1965

One of my favourite movies of all time is the classic Dr Zhivago set against the backdrop of the turmoil of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia.

And I’ve always been haunted by the scene where Yuri – played by Omar Sharif – returns home from work early and admonishes his wife for not keeping the heating on. His wife then breaks down in tears telling Yuri they have no fuel to keep it alight.

Later that evening Yuri sneaks out into the night scavenging for wood to take home and burn to heat his home and keep his family warm. In the darkness of night, Yuri rips off a few wooden planks from a fence which he hides under his heavy overcoat, while his half-brother, Communist General Yevgraf Zhivago watches from the shadows.

However, not being able to heat one’s home in winter, and scavenging the streets looking for a few pieces of wood to burn for a little warmth is not something restricted to chaos and confusion of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia.

Here in modern-day Australia, one of most energy-rich nations in the world, last financial year a total of 109,000 households had their electricity disconnected, unable to afford their electricity bills inflated by over $3 billion in subsidies for Chinese made solar panels and wind turbines.

And add to those 109,000 homes where the electricity was cut-off, a further 100,000 plus more homes are on electricity hardship programs, plus the millions of Australians that this winter won’t turn their heaters on for fear of being unable to afford what is now almost the most expensive electricity in the world — and we to have many people scavenging the streets looking for pieces of wood to burn to try and keep their homes warm.

Recently, I’ve heard stories of people stealing wooden pallets from industrial areas to take home to burn for a little warmth. I also constantly hear stories people going in bushland to fill the boot of their car with firewood because they can’t afford electricity. And we’ve even had examples of people resorting to burning barbecue heat beads indoors to try and heat their homes – only to be poisoned by noxious gasses emitted.

But to the climate change zealots, having hundreds of thousands of their fellow Australians unable to heat their homes in winter is simply a necessary sacrifice in their virtue-signalling against “global warming’’.

As Yuri Zhivago says to Bolshevik commander upon finding an old Russian peasant suffering from starvation and lack of warmth; “It would give me satisfaction for to hear them admit it”.




Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


No comments: