• Skeptical Science - because scientists are trained to be skeptical about everything
• Real Climate - "climate science" from "climate scientists"
• DeSmog Blog - scientists communicating with citizens
• The Consensus Project - see what 97% of the scientists think
• Climate Crocks - a wordpress site
• And Then There's Physics - a wordpress site
• video: Climate Change 101 with Bill Nye the Science Guy. Watch this video then make up your own mind.

• www.startrekcontinues.com
• www.startrekcontinues.com/episodes/
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_Continues
• https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/125377036/star-trek-continues-webseries

• After the success of episode #1, this group of fans created a project on Kickstarter with the intention to raise $100k so they could do three more episodes. They surprised everyone (including Hollywood) when they pulled in over $126k in just four weeks.

• Burn Equation: 2 C₈H₁₈ + 25 O₂ → 16 CO₂ + 18 H₂O (reference)
• Atomic Masses from the Periodic Table:

  Element	Mass
  Hydrogen	1
  Carbon	12
  Oxygen	16

• Gasoline Mass Calculation
  • Total Gasoline mass (from the left-hand side of the equation):
    • 2 x ((C x 8) + (H x 18))
    • 2 x ((12 x 8) + (1 x 18))
    • 2 x (96 + 18)
    • 2 x 114 = 228
• Carbon Dioxide Mass Calculation
  • Total Carbon Dioxide mass (from the right-hand side equation):
    • 16 x ((C x 1) + (O x 2))
    • 16 x ((12 x 1) + (16 x 2))
    • 16 x (12 + 32)
    • 16 x 44 = 704
  • Ratio: 704 / 228 = 3.09 (resultant CO2 is ~ 3 times heavier than gasoline)
• Water Vapor Mass Calculation
  • Total Water Vapor mass (from the right-hand side equation):
    • 18 x ((H x 2) + (O x 1))
    • 18 x ((1 x 2) + (16 x 1))
    • 18 x (2 + 16)
    • 18 x 18 = 324
  • Ratio: 324 / 228 = 1.42 (resultant water vapor is ~ 1.4 times heavier than gasoline)

• quote from page 13: The next time you hear a modern Luddite -- from a creationist who rejects all modern astronomy, biology, and geology, to the faith healer or homeopath or other quack who rejects modern medicine --  just ask yourself one thing: Would you want to go back to the world of the late eighteenth century with its high death rates and short life expectancy, suffer exposure to many deadly diseases, and live in a world with limited education and poverty? This is the choice they are offering you -- even as those same creationists and other Luddites benefit from modern medicine, and even exploit modern technologies like the internet to push their antiscientific causes. As Michael Shermer put it, science and critical thinking are "the most precious things we have".
• paraphrased from page 34: just a few individuals (Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, William Nierenberg, Robert Jastrow, Edward Teller, and a handful more) were at the front of attempts to deny reality (denying the science of: the dangers of smoking tobacco, secondhand smoke, nuclear winter, ozone hole, DDT, acid rain, anthropogenic global warming). Most of these men gained their reputations as nuclear physicists, and some actually built the first atomic bomb. After the Cold War ended there was no more Commie bogeyman to fear, they retained the Cold War mentality that anything threatening capitalism and free enterprise is bad -- even if the scientific case for it is overwhelming. Never mind that a background in nuclear physics gives one absolutely no qualifications whatsoever to evaluate studies in medicine or climate science. These few men have done more to harm the country and stunt the the dissemination of scientific research than any Soviet threat ever could have accomplished.
• quote from page 208: Yet this scientific rejection of astrology has had relatively little impact on the general public, thanks to the general scientific illiteracy of the American people.
• page 109 includes a list of the top 34 countries by GDP but orders the list by scientific comprehension of their citizens:
  28. Greece
  29. Bulgaria
  30. Lithuania
  31. Latvia
  32. Cypress
  33. The United States of America
  34. Turkey
• Chapter Titles:
  1. Reality Check
  2. Science, Our Candle in the Darkness
  3. Betrayers of the Truth: Selling Out Science
  4. Making the Environment the Enemy: Acid Rain, the Ozone Hole, and the Demonization of Rachel Carson
  5. Hot Enough for You? The Heated Debate over a Warming Planet
  6. Gimme That Old Time Religion: Creationism, Intelligent Design, and the Denial of Humanity's Place in Nature
  7. Jenny's Body Count: Playing [vaccine] Russian Roulette with Our Children
  8. Victims of Modern Witch Doctors: AIDS Denialism
  9. If it Quacks like a Quack: Snake-Oil Con Artists in an Era of Medical Science
  10. What's Your Sign? The Ancient Pseudoscience of Astrology
  11. Down the Slope of Hubbert's Curve: The End of Cheap Oil and Natural Resources
  12. Far from the Madding Crowd: Human Overpopulation and Its Consequences
  13. The Rejection of Reality: How the Denial of Science Threatens Us All

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycWpt8zHP3k - Why America is Screwed - Part 1 (Military Spending vs. Health Care)
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9smCzxtdkY - Why America is Screwed - Part 2 (Education)

"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations"

"The country is headed toward a single and splendid government of an aristocracy founded on banking institutions and moneyed incorporations and if this tendency continues it will be the end of freedom and democracy, the few will be ruling...I hope we shall...crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to trial and bid defiance to the laws of our country.  I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies"

Thomas Jefferson

1. Average global temperatures have risen 0.8 C (1.44 F) degrees since measurements began in 1880
   Direct Measurement: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/
   and: http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
2. CO₂ levels have risen 24.76% since annual measurements began in 1958
   Direct Measurement: CO₂ levels have risen from 315 ppm to 395 ppm
   Computed Rate of Increase: (395-315) / (2013-1958) = (80 / 55) = 1.46 ppm per year
3. Oxygen levels have fallen 106 ppm since annual measurements began in 1990
   Direct Measurement: http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/
   Measured Annual Rate of Decrease: 19 molecules "per meg of oxygen" (or 5.8 ppm of atmosphere per year)
   Current Total Decrease: (2011-1990) x 19 = 399 "per meg of oxygen" (or 106 ppm of atmosphere)
   http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/the-keeling-curves ("O₂ Curve" vs. "CO₂ Curve")
   Comment: Since O₂ production by the biosphere is not able to compensate for all the "unnatural" fossil fuel burning by humanity, it appears that the biosphere is slowly dying.
4. Ocean levels have risen 20 cm (8 in) over the past 100 years and this rate appears to be increasing
   Direct Measurements:
   • http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page6.php
   • http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
   • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
   This is primarily due to these facts:
   • melting polar ice directly contributes directly to level rise
   • warmer water occupies a slightly larger volume (the rise will continue after all the ice is melted)
   • less ice results in precipitation immediately flowing back to the oceans rather than being buffered for a time as snow or ice
5. Greenland and the arctic in general are melting at an unprecedented rate (which contributes to some of the ocean level rise).
6. Due to its high average altitude of 2286m (7500 ft), Antarctica shouldn't be melting at all and yet huge pieces have slowly broken away over the past 10 years including Larsen B. 
7. Most glaciers today are already less than 25% of their size compared to 1900 (Glacier National Park will soon need to change its name)
8. Human population quadrupled from 1.5 billion (in 1900) to 6.0 billion (in 1999) and a larger fraction is already living industrially by burning energy derived from fossil fuels. Humanity is currently growing at a constant of 1 billion every 12 years. Humanity reached 7.0 billion in December of 2011 and are on target to hit 8 billion in 2023. That's billion with 9 zeroes.
    

1. If dinosaurs had developed technology then they could have protected themselves from the asteroid strike associated with Chicxulub Crater on the coast of Yucatan, Mexico.
2. Humanity has developed the necessary technology but political-ideological pressures have neutered NASA's ability to proceed beyond primitive NEO detection.
3. Developing and implementing planetary protection technology just may be an evolutionarily survival prerequisite (so Tea Party thinking will doom us all). Think of this as a protective immune system for the whole planet.
4. NASA NEO links
   • http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/ - home
   • http://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/Search.html - observations
5. Mark your calendars for February 15, 2013 when Asteroid 2012 DA14 will pass under the orbit of Earth's geosynchronous satellites.
   • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwidzVHvbGI (NASA video)
   • It is expected to pass over Indonesia at 14:30 EST
   • If it were to impact the Earth (but it will not), the estimated energy release would be 3.5 megatons tons of TNT (220 times bigger than the Little Boy bomb dropped on Japan at the end of WW2)
   While this rock is only 50 m (~150 ft) wide, remember that similarly sized rocks were responsible for:
   1. the 1908 Tunguska Event in Russia
   2. as well as Meteor Crater approximately 43 miles (69 km) east of Flagstaff, Arizona.
6. Oops, on the morning of February 15, 2013 while we were waiting for the approach of 2012 DA14, an asteroid approximately 15m in size became an air-bursting meteor in an event now known as 2013 Russian meteor event. More than 1,200 people were injured by shock waves to buildings.
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceguard quote: Arthur C. Clarke coined the term in his novel Rendezvous with Rama where SPACEGUARD was the name of an early warning system created following a catastrophic asteroid impact.
8. B612 Foundation (who are looking for private donations so they can launch their own NEO monitoring satellite)
   • http://b612foundation.org/
     • I just became a member by donating $25
   •  http://b612foundation.org/sentinel-mission/
     • promises to discover every month what all Earth bound telescopes have discovered over the last 30 years.
9. Near Earth Objects and Planetary Defense documentary videos
   • http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDC5F91F6EAD53191

Initial Observations:

• Comparing Venus to Mercury
  • Because Venus' atmosphere limits radiative loss, Venus (with an atmosphere) is hotter than Mercury (no atmosphere) even though Venus is almost twice as far from the sun as Mercury's average distance.
• Comparing Earth to Moon
  • Because Earth's atmosphere limits radiative loss, Earth's mean temperature is 60 Celsius degrees higher relative to the Moon.
  • Because the Earth and Moon are the same distance from the sun (on average) we can ignore solar distance and directly compare solar energy and mean temperatures:
    • We start by calculating their apparent two-dimensional area (they appear as flat disks when viewed from the Sun) to determine how much solar energy is intercepted and can see that the Earth is intercepting ~ 13 times more solar energy than the moon.
    • But computing the surface area (4 x PI x r²) of both bodies reveals that Earth is ~ 13 times larger so everything cancels out (sort of).
    • The Moon rotates only once every 27.3 days so the sun side gets really hot (think of a very slow barbeque) while the dark side gets really cold.
    • If the moon rotated as fast as Earth (once a day) then the solar energy would be more evenly distributed across the whole surface.
    • If the moon had any real atmosphere it would act as a radiative buffer to "disperse/distribute inbound energy" while "retarding outbound energy loss"
    • Lack of a atmospheric buffering aside, temperature swings on the Moon are larger because the Moon only rotates once every 27.3 days

We can see CO₂ in action (as a warming blanket) by comparing Earth to Venus:

 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000011111111111111111111111111 }
 0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    0    1    2    3    4    5 } - million km
 0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0 }
 |                        |                           |                     |
Sun                    Mercury                      Venus                 Earth
                       50 M-km                    108 M-km              150 M-km

• If we were being very simplistic then we would just compare the solar distances of Venus to Earth (notice that the first three planets are almost at one-third points from the sun). Since the ratio of 108/150 would indicate relative coolness, then the inverse ratio of 150/108 would indicate relative hotness; and that value is 1.39 (Venus should be 1.39 times hotter than Earth)
• But anyone familiar with radiation knows that simple inverse ratios must be replaced with the inverse-square law. This calculation then becomes (150² / 108²) = (22500 / 11664) = 1.93 (Venus should be 1.93 times hotter than Earth).
• But this comparison is still a bit too simplistic since Venus is ~ 5% smaller than Earth so would intercept a little less solar radiation at the closer position. Here it makes sense to use the radius of the (almost) spherical body to compute the area of an apparent two-dimensional disk as viewed from the sun. Repeating our relative calculations using "squared distances" multiplied by "apparent areas" yields a slightly lower solar collection factor of 1.74 (Venus should be 1.74 times hotter than Earth).

• Even though Venus is ~ 5% smaller than Earth, being ~ 28% closer to the Sun results in Venus collecting 1.74 times more solar energy.
• Comparisons:
  • If Venus had an atmosphere similar to Earth's then you would expect Venus' mean temperature to be 499 K (1.74 x 287) rather than 735 K which is 1.47 (735 / 499) times hotter than it should be. Since the atmospheric pressures are similar (Earth's is 9% greater but let's ignore that for a moment) the only conclusion we can make is that Venus' mostly CO₂ atmosphere is the cause of higher temperatures. (note: if the atmospheric pressure of Venus were 9% greater, the resultant mean temperature would be a little higher due to Boyle's Law)
  • If Earth were 1.47 times hotter then our mean temperature would be 422 K (1.47 x 287) or 147 C which is too hot for complex life.
• Caveats:
  • Remember that water boils at 373.1 K (100 C) and most complex forms of life cannot survive 323 K (50 C) which is only 1.13 (323 / 287) times warmer than now.
  • Earth's maximum surface temperature is already at 53 C which is already 3 C degrees too hot.
  • Earth cannot be allowed to warm any further, no matter if the current levels are natural, man-made, or a combination of both.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RhdY-ZezK7w (31 minutes)
• I was surprised at the quality of the data (both proxy and instrumental) of this science
• one interesting revelation of many:
  • Data from tide gauges: the 20th century average rise was 2-2.5 mm per year (20-25 cm per century = 8-10 inches per century)
  • Data from satellites: the average decade rise is 3-3.5 mm per year (30-35 cm per century = 12-14 inches per century)
  • Therefore, melt-rate is not linear; it is increasing
  • Predictions indicate that the Eastern Coast of the United States will be most hurt by Antarctic melting.
  • Supporting Resources:
    • Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses
      http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
    • Sea-Level Rise and Storm Events
      http://www.gov.ns.ca/coast/documents/report/Coastal-Tech-Report-Chapter7.pdf
    • Annual averages of the global mean sea level (mm)
      http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-5-13.html
    • Global Climate Change: Key Indicators (from NASA)
      http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
      current rate of change: 3.17 mm / year

• I just stumbled onto this German energy site:  http://energytransition.de/ (note: Energiewende = Energy Revolution).
  Take a look at item #1 where GHG (green house gases) go down while GDP (gross domestic product) goes up.
  Question: does this mean that Western countries, like USA and Canada, will expect to see their respective GDPs continue to drop?
   
• www.ieso.ca (Ontario Power Stats)
  
  
• I just stumbled onto this high-quality energy blog hosted by a Scottish engineer.
   
• Why the whole world needs more CANDU nuclear reactors
   
• My energy production resources (includes wind and hydro) were moved here
   
• Waterloo Global Science Initiative (how will we reduce CO₂ while 2 billion people wait to be connected to the power grid?)
  • www.ScientificAmerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

• book: http://www.amazon.com/Turings-Cathedral-Origins-Digital-Universe/dp/0375422773
• video: http://ww3.tvo.org/video/173792/george-dyson-origins-digital-universe
• I've been working in the computer industry since 1976 and had not heard the story about Williams Tube memory (1024 lighted areas of war-surplus oscilloscope cathode ray tubes). You connect 40 of these together to make 5 KB of memory. Note: as the bits (screen phosphors) begin to fade they need to be refreshed. This is not much different than what goes on in modern DRAM where charges leak away from internal capacitors.

• A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
  Hover your cursor here to reveal the answer:
  S1 usually answers 10 cents but the correct answer is 5 cents
• If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets?
  Hover your cursor here to reveal the answer:
  S1 usaully answers 100 but the correct answer is 5
  
• In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of it?
  Hover your cursor here to reveal the answer:
  S1 usually answers 24 but the correct answer is 47 (S2 might be triggered as soon as S1 recogizes exponental growth)

--- xxx ---

• you want to live a long healthy life
• you enjoy smoking tobacco
• you have been told smoking is bad for your health
• these facts cause an internal thought-conflict (dissonance) in your brain. To minimize this dissonance:
  • most people will stop smoking (the pleasure of smoking is replaced with the pleasure associated with removed dissonance)
  • but a smaller group of people will find it easier to inject one, or more, creative counter-balancing thoughts like "the science is wrong", "the science is not 100% certain", "scientists are part of a global conspiracy theory to confuse the public while reducing my personal freedoms", etc.
    (by the way, although the science may not be 100% correct, it is often "correct enough" to make a good decision)

• video 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ZtQSv60fbrE (4 min, 56 sec)
• video 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VFFczMYJoSY (7 min, 10 sec)
• article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

• The Republican War on Science
• Unscientific America
• How does the anti-science view get traction?
  Excerpt from: Deja vu All Over Again (2004-09-13)
  
  This is how it begins: Proponents of a fringe or non-mainstream scientific viewpoint seek added credibility. They're sick of being taunted for having few (if any) peer reviewed publications in their favor. Fed up, they decide to do something about it.
   
  These “skeptics” find what they consider to be a weak point in the mainstream theory and critique it. Not by conducting original research; they simply review previous work. Then they find a little-known, not particularly influential journal where an editor sympathetic to their viewpoint hangs his hat.
   
  They get their paper through the peer review process and into print. They publicize the hell out of it. Activists get excited by the study, which has considerable political implications.
   
  Before long, mainstream scientists catch on to what’s happening. They shake their heads. Some slam the article and the journal that published it, questioning the review process and the editor’s ideological leanings. In published critiques, they tear the paper to scientific shreds.
   
  Embarrassed, the journal’s publisher backs away from the work. But it’s too late for that. The press has gotten involved, and though the work in question has been discredited in the world of science, partisans who favor its conclusions for ideological reasons will champion it for years to come.
   
  The scientific waters are muddied. The damage is done. (read more...)

1. faith-based
   • Dictionary definition of Faith: belief that is not based on proof
   • Dictionary definitions of Sectarian:
     1. narrowly confined or devoted to a particular sect.
     2. a bigoted or narrow-minded adherent of a sect.
   • Dictionary definition of Theocracy: a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
   • Question(s):
     1. Does it make any sense to kill in the name of religion (sectarian violence)?
     2. Does it make any sense to organize government around religion? You might be okay with this as long as YOUR SECT in in charge, but how will you feel when a different sect legally supplants yours? Perhaps it is better for all if we keep our religious practices private and personal.
2. evidence-based
   • Dictionary definition of Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
   • Dictionary definition of Secular: of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred.
     comment: If sectarian is "narrowly confined or bigoted" then secular is "more broadly encompassing and flexible"

1. Quote: "Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army" -- Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
2. European Enlightenment (1650-1800)
3. American Enlightenment (1715–1789)
4. Baruch Spinoza a.k.a. Benedict de Spinoza (24 November 1632 – 21 February 1677) was a Jewish-Dutch philosopher. Revealing considerable scientific aptitude, the breadth and importance of Spinoza's work was not fully realized until years after his death. By laying the groundwork for the 18th century Enlightenment and modern biblical criticism, he came to be considered one of the great rationalists of 17th-century philosophy. His magnum opus, the posthumous Ethics, in which he opposed Descartes's mind–body dualism, has earned him recognition as one of Western philosophy's most important contributors. In the Ethics, "Spinoza wrote the last indisputable Latin masterpiece, and one in which the refined conceptions of medieval philosophy are finally turned against themselves and destroyed entirely." Philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel said of all contemporary philosophers, "You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all."
5. Age of Reason (1650-present)
   • The Americans closely followed English and Scottish political ideas, as well as some French thinkers such as Montesquieu. During the enlightenment there was a great emphasis upon liberty, democracy, republicanism and religious tolerance - culminating in the drafting of the United States Declaration of Independence. Attempts to reconcile science and religion resulted in a widespread rejection of prophecy, miracle and revealed religion in preference for Deism - especially by Thomas Paine in "The Age of Reason" and by Thomas Jefferson in his short Jefferson Bible - from which all supernatural aspects were removed.

• www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio <<<--- video of the 58 minute lecture
• Many viewers will be surprised to learn that the science has been settled (more or less) for five decade
• Naomi Oreskes is also a co-author of the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt

US President Lyndon B. Johnson
US Congress, February 1965

---

1. There was very little industrial activity in India and China back in the 1960s. Had the US decided to do something back then, the world would be a very different place now. Today the industrial activities of these countries is now used as an excuse to do nothing. Meanwhile, the citizens of North America are feeling the brunt of collective inactivity.
2. Perhaps North Americans might have done something different during the oil crisis of 1973-74 (remember the lineups for gasoline?)
3. On October 17, 2012, the giant German reinsurance company Munich Re issued a prescient report titled Severe Weather in North America. Globally, the rate of extreme weather events is rising, and "nowhere in the world is the rising number of natural catastrophes more evident than in North America." From 1980 through 2011, weather disasters caused losses totaling $1.06 trillion. Munich Re found "a nearly quintupled number of weather-related loss events in North America for the past three decades." By contrast, there was "an increase factor of 4 in Asia, 2.5 in Africa, 2 in Europe, and 1.5 in South America." Human-caused climate change "is believed to contribute to this trend," the report said, "though it influences various perils in different ways."

• My Climate Modeling for newbies
• An introduction to climate-change science for the citizen/layperson.
  • www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo - Climate Change -- the scientific debate
  • www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OB2prBtVFo - introduction to Climate Models
  • http://www.skepticalscience.com/history-climate-science.html
     
• Climategate 2009 - The truth about the 2009 email thefts from the University of East Anglia (CRU)
  
  • this publicity stunt occurred just before the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Copenhagen, Denmark.
  • www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY - part 1
  • www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4 - part 2
  • http://climatecrocks.com/2011/04/28/unwinding-hide-the-decline/
  • While reading through the Climategate 2009 emails, I stumbled upon some damning information about two climate-change denying scientists, Roy Spencer and John Christy
    Summary:
    • NASA publishes satellite data free-of-charge to the world from their websites
    • In the 1990s, Spence and Christy (S&C) continually published their own analysis of NASA's satellite data which indicated slight global cooling but would not publish their mathematical model.
    • In the early 2000s another group working at RSS got a look at the S&C mathematical model and noticed some algebraic errors including one term with the wrong sign. This appeared in peer-reviewed literature in the summer of 2003. S&C were aware of this error at this time.
    • The peer-reviewed information is published by the AAAS publication Science in the summer of 2005. S&C publically acknowledge their errors in the letters section of Science in September of 2005.
    • After 2005, S&C both continue to assert publically (newspapers, TV, internet) that their is no global warming which is not what you would expect from a scientist.
    • Comment: No scientist should ever be embarrassed by making mathematical errors and neither should S&C. However, the ramp-up to peer-reviewed publishing, including full disclosure of data and mathematics, is supposed to prevent something false from being published. Had S&C been less secret about their mathematical model then this whole situation could have been avoided. What they publically said and did after 2005 is puzzling. 
       
• Climategate 2011 - Wow, I can't believe it. Some of the emails stolen in 2009 were withheld then rereleased in 2011 (just before the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Durban, South Africa) but this publicity stunt fizzled almost immediately. Rather than proving a conspiracy of legitimate climate scientists, the emails cast more doubt on climate denier scientists including Roy Spencer and John Christy.
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4OB2prBtVFo
    (the "John Christy" email can be seen at video time marker "4:42") and can also be found on database page 3707. Here's another one from database page 124965205
  • Speculation: I wonder if a similar stunt is planned for the next conference
  • I used to think that Roy Spencer and John Christy were honorable but misguided.
    • I changed my opinion of Roy Spencer when he joined the board of a so-called think-tank which goes by the name George C. Marshall Institute (an industry lobbyist organization which denies any science limiting corporate profits including the dangers associated with smoking tobacco)
      • To me, he is not so honorable while he pretends to be an active climate scientist when it is clear to all that he is a paid "gun for hire" working for an industry lobby organization.
      • http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/
    • I changed my opinion of John Christy after I recently stumbled across this Record of U.S.A. Congressional Testimony from 2006 where John Christy is caught lying (I do not know if he was under oath)
      • 109^th Congress House Hearings
        From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
        DOCID: f:31362.wais
        QUESTIONS SURROUNDING THE 'HOCKEY STICK' TEMPERATURE STUDIES: IMPLICATIONS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ASSESSMENTS
      • https://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/109h/31362.txt <<<---*** download it here
      • then locate the phrase "I want to ask Dr. Christy"
     
• Climategate 2012 - Like most citizens of planet Earth, I did not expect anything to come out of the political negotiations at the 2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Doha, Qatar. However, it seems that more politically-minded people (some scientists, mostly reporters and lobbyists) become agitated before these events which triggers unexpected behavior. Up until now, I used to think that Judith Curry was a scientist with nothing more than an opposing interpretation of the available data but that changed recently when she thrice helped the climate-denier community believe in very questionable information published in a British newspaper with a large internet following.
   
  I could not provide better text then what you will read here:
  • www.skepticalscience.com/misleading-daily-mail-prebunked-nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html
    • www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong
  • www.skepticalscience.com/rose-curry-double-down-denial.html <<<--- WTF?
  • Scientist who claimed 'end of scepticism' on climate change under fire from colleague over 'huge mistake'
         which could be rewritten
    Richard Muller, who headed a 12-member study of climate change known as BEST, is now under fire from Judith Curry who disagreed with the findings
    www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055406/Scientist-claimed-end-scepticism-climate-change-colleague-huge-mistake.html
     
    
  Now to be fair to Ms. Curry, she has posted on numerous blogs that she has been misquoted by David Rose numerous times over the years which makes me wonder why she continues to have any contact with him at all. (fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me). She should also set the record straight about her view of BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature). Does she stand with her scientific colleagues or non-scientists like Anthony Watts?

• When sunlight falls on the light-mill, the vanes turn with the black surfaces apparently being pushed away by the light. But there is a problem with this explanation. Light falling on the black side should be absorbed, while light falling on the silver side of the vanes should be reflected. In that case the mill is turning the wrong way.
• In 1901, with a better vacuum pump, Pyotr Lebedev showed that the radiometer only works when there is low pressure gas in the bulb but the vanes stay motionless in a hard vacuum. This is proof that the thermal properties of the low pressure gas are responsible for the motion, not the direct action of photons. Climate-Warming Food-for-thought: too much gas traps too much heat causing the machine to stop working.
• The radiometer can also be made to rotate backwards in a refrigerator.
• Other mistaken explanations for the radiometer: Since the black side of each vane would absorb heat from infrared radiation more than the silver side, then this would cause the rarefied gas to be heated on the black side.  In that case, the obvious explanation is that the pressure of the gas on the darker side increases with its temperature, creating a higher force on the dark side of the vane which thus pushes the rotor around.  Maxwell analyzed this theory carefully and discovered that, in fact, the warmer gas would simply expand in such a way that there would be no net force from this effect, just a steady flow of heat across the vanes.  So this explanation in terms of warm gas is wrong, but even the Encyclopedia Britannica gives this false explanation today.  A variation on this theme is that the motion of the hot molecules on the black side of the vane provide the push.  Again this is not correct, and could only work if the mean free path between molecular collisions were as large as the container, instead of its actual value of typically less than a millimeter.
• The correct solution to the problem was provided qualitatively by Osborne Reynolds in 1879 in a paper to the Royal Society in which he considered what he called "thermal transpiration". To explain the radiometer, therefore, one must focus attention not on the faces of the vanes, but on their edges.  The faster molecules from the warmer side strike the edges obliquely and impart a higher force than the colder molecules.  Again, these are the same thermo-molecular forces responsible for Reynolds' thermal transpiration.  The effect is also known as thermal creep, since it causes gases to creep along a surface that has a temperature gradient.  The net movement of the vane due to the tangential forces around the edges is away from the warmer gas and towards the cooler gas, with the gas passing around the edge in the opposite direction.  The behavior is just as if there were a greater force on the blackened side of the vane (which as Maxwell showed is not the case); but the explanation must be in terms of what happens not at the faces of the vanes, but near their edges.

1. Download a free PDF copy of the 418-page 2002 publication: The Phoenix Principle and the Coming Dark Age by Marc Widdowson (British military analyst and educator) 
   • subtitled: Social catastrophes – human progress 3000 BC to AD 3000
   • PDF: http://www.bellics.com/remote-link/The_Coming_Dark_Age.pdf
   • Marc Widdowson's original web site at www.darkage.fsnet.co.uk appears to have fallen into the bit-bucket sometime after 2008. But you can still access much of the original material (including charts and diagrams which are not in the current PDF) via the Way Back Machine here: http://archive.org/
   • The chart above illustrates the rise-and-fall of six major empires. Notice that both the amplitudes and periods are decreasing.
   • The associated tables, which were published 5-years before the 2007-2008 American-caused world-wide financial debacle, seem shockingly accurate.
2. Download ($10) an eBook of The Coming Dark Age by Roberto Vacca - 153 pages in PDF format
   • This book was first published in 1973 then updated in 2000
   • Click here for a free view "Contents, Foreword, Introduction and the First Chapter"
   • quote: "I read this book in a palsied fascination of horror. I have never read a book that was at the same time so convincing and so frightening." - Isaac Asimov
3. New Scientist - Entering a dark age of innovation
4. While there are many complicated and interacting reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire, I am now convinced that Edward Gibbon was correct when he stated that the primary reason for the collapse was due to the the effects of organized religion. Today's world might collapse for nothing more that the reasons of religious intolerance or greed ("materialism" is another form of religion)
5. Religious Method (dogma): Fiction, Assertion, Suppression
   Scientific Method (pragma): Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment (test), Debate. Then publish and repeat.