Inhofe’s list of 650 scientists that supposedly dispute the consensus on AGW reminded me of another list: The Discovery Institute’s list of scientists who dissent from Darwinism, so I thought I’d compare the two lists.

First, numbers. The Discovery Institute’s list has 751 names, while Inhofe’s has only 604. (Not “More Than 650″ as he claims — there are many names appearing more than once.)

Second, how do you get on the list? Well, you have to sign up to get on the Discovery Institute’s list, but Inhofe will add you to his list if he thinks you’re disputing the global warming consensus and he won’t take you off, even if you tell him to do so. Yes, there is someone less honest than the Discovery Institute.

Third, what sort of scientists are on the lists? Well, the Discovery Institute list has a distinct shortage of biologists, while Inhofe’s is lacking in climate scientists. It does have a lot of meteorologists, but these are people who present weather forecasts on TV, not scientists who study climate.

Fourth, who is on both lists? There are five names, and two are from the University of Oklahoma.

Here are the five people who couldn’t stop at rejecting just one science:

Edward Blick, Professor Emeritus of the Mewbourne School of Petroleum and Geological Engineering, University of Oklahoma. In an article published by the Twin Cities Creation Science Association, he wrote:

The predecessors of today’s unbelievers replaced the Holy Bible’s book of Genesis
with Darwin’s Origin of the Species. Now with the help of Al Gore and the United
Nations they are trying to replace the Holy Bible’s book of Revelation with the U.N.’s
report Anthropogenic Global Warming. They tell us that man’s use of fossil fuels
results in too much atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) which causes excessive warming
and melting of polar ice caps. They say if we don’t take drastic steps (trillions of dollars
of taxes, year after year, after year), we will either roast to death, or drown in the rising
seas. The plan is for the U.N. to take control of the world’s economy and dictate what
we can use for transportation (bikes?), what we can eat, where we can live, and what
industries we must shut down. This whole scheme is a “Trojan Horse” for global
socialism! …

For thousands of years our earth has undergone cooling and warming under the control
of God. Man cannot control the weather, but he can kill millions of people in his vain
attempt to control it, by limiting or eliminating the fuel that we use. How does God
control our warming and cooling? Scientists have discovered it is the Sun! Amazing,
even grade school children know this. The Sun’s warming or cooling the earth varies
with sunspot and Solar flairs.

David Deming, Associate Professor of Geosciences, University of Oklahoma. In an op-ed in the Edmond Sun he wrote

Obama is a vapid demagogue, a hollow man that despises American culture. He is ill-suited to be president of the United States. As the weeks pass, more Americans will come to this realization and elect McCain/Palin in a landslide.

So you can guess that his writing about climate in this week’s Washington Times is likely to be as accurate as his election prediction:

But the last two years of global cooling have nearly erased 30 years of temperature increases. To the extent that global warming ever existed, it is now officially over.

i-80019a093fdc112d2a043fd6f1393550-06.13.08.globalairtemp.png

Despite a strong La Nina this year, 2008 was much warmer than any year in the 70s.

Guillermo Gonzalez, former Associate Professor of Astronomy Iowa State University.

Robert Smith, Professor of Chemistry University of Nebraska, Omaha

James Wanliss, Associate Professor of Physics, Embry-Riddle University

And I must also include this awesome quote from Edward Blick:

In an absolutely beautiful description, [Isiah] declares that these obedient ones “shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint” (Isa. 40:28-31).

In addition to the obvious spiritual truth conveyed in this context, science has determined that this passage was rather ahead of its time in terms of aerodynamic information.

Dr. Edward F. Blick, who served as a professor in the School of Aerospace at the University of Oklahoma, did extensive wind-tunnel studies at the university with eagles. In doing research in 1971, Dr. Blick and his colleagues discovered that the eagle’s six-slotted feathers (at the end of each wing) curve upward in gliding flight. Wind tunnel measurements demonstrated that this design reduced the size of the vortex (whirling current) that emanates from each wing tip. This, in turn, reduces drag on the wings and allows the eagle to soar great distances on the air currents–without even having to beat its wings.

Professor Blick, impressed with the accuracy of the Bible in this regard, stated: “Thus 2,700 years after the scripture in Isaiah was written, science has stumbled onto the same truth.”

Comments

  1. #1 shane
    December 19, 2008

    Now what I was saying about GW as the new religion is that there are some that are trying to use GW as a way to kill capitalism. They do not want use to be free and want to control what we can and can’t do. You can say that I’m paranoid here if you want, but when some one tells you that you can drive your car or heat your house because you are killing the planet and tell you what light you can buy then we got a problem. I do not like when environmentalists and other like Al Gore promotes Going Green and does not like by example. Al Gore has made about $50 million off this whole green thing that he is cramming down every ones throat. And why do we need carbon credits? They are a joke, just another tax. There are many ways to be responsible with out taxing or mandating unrealistic goals that will choke our economy. And I’m not saying not to have regulation and fined for dumping waist in rivers and lakes.
    We can not do squat to change the temperature on planet earth the temperature is controlled by the Sun number 1. With no sun we become a ball of ice. After that in no particular order, Water vapor, ocean currents, wind currents, Ocean temperatures, the amount of Dust and other particles in the air. The tilt of the earth in relation to sun, the orbit pattern between earth and sun, any volcanic activity, tectonic plate movement and a few other thing I cant thing of just off hand. Now if the temperature increases CO2 leave increase as a result. But lets say the green house gases did make the temperature rise. It would also increase the amount of water vapor in the air. This can cause a reverse affect so it balances out. I will try to write up an article explaining it in detail with references. But for those who are absolute about your side there will be no amount of information that will change your main even if you are freezing your back side off you will still blame humans for. I can not change what I can not change so I adapt.
    Here in Texas it get hot in the summer, over 100+ f so we have air conditioners to cool the homes here. In the winter it can get in the 20s f and teens, so we also have heaters to keep warm. This year at my house I’ve seen our low temperatures in the high 20s f for a total of 6 day between November and December. We are healthier today with the technology that we have then we were 100 yrs ago and to force new laws and taxes to changes the way we live is not a viable solution. Would you rather breathe dust and horse manure or car exalt? With a horse you could not go very far or very fast. I have both and I prefer to drive my car the 52 mile I need to go to work then ride my horse.
    Take a look at all the thing you use on a daily bases and list me the thing you can not do with out then look at what was used to make those things. There is more pollution in the manufacturing of a Toyota Preis then driving of an H2 hummer for 300k mile due to the nickel and Zink in the batteries and all the plastic in the car to keep it light enough to balance the power to weight ratio. I also tried finding the cost per KWH for each of the types of power plants like wind, nuke, coal, gas, and solar but with all the subsidies and taxes and environmental legal cost, and lake of maintenance figures and every site promoting their favorite power I can not get an accurate costing. I would like to see some data that is non bias and non promoting of a particular type of power. Every site I came across says why there type of power is better. For example is wind they don’t take in consideration of the amount of power produced compared to the overall cost of maintenance and power line required to run the power to the city. Here in San Antonio if you want to you wind power you bill goes up $0.14 per KWh. But with all the new taxes that coal will be getting it screws the number up.

  2. #2 Marion Delgado
    December 19, 2008

    Okay, back to my troll race.

    I need to do it on my geocities, I think, vs. my bloggy thing.

    It’s like a cockroach race.

    so, I will restart the race:

    shane:

    According to http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/ the temperature in the recent years may be warmer then the last few hundred your or so its still colder the it was with the dinosaurs. There is also a great chart of Greenland over the last 18000 years. So if you look at all the chars and read thought it what we see in temperature change is just normal changes that the earth goes through.

    (IR/W*) *Illiteracy read/write

    janama:

    Obviously if there are still people who are skeptical after reading the papers the theory hasn’t been proven.

    (BI*) Breath-taking idiocy

    so the troll race starts now:

    shane
    |###|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
    
    janama
    |###|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
    
    
  3. #3 Brian D
    December 19, 2008

    I must be masochistic.

    Shane, I don’t use this term lightly, but you are fractally wrong.

    1) You bring up folk trying to kill capitalism, when anyone who’s been following green economics lately knows that
    a) Saving energy means saving money in addition to cutting carbon
    b) Investment in green technologies has continued to grow in spite of the recession
    c) Modern free-marketer thinkers, including Thomas Friedman, and Nobel-prize-winning economists like Paul Krugman, are calling for green investment
    In short, all of these folk are trying to *use* capitalism to solve the problem, not kill it. (This sets aside that free-marketers have apparently ignored the full costs of energy in much the same way that Enron ignored costs; trying to fix this wouldn’t result in “killing freedom” but rather fixing a problem. But I digress.)

    2) Al Gore means dick-all to the problem. He’s a populist, nothing more. Denialists tend to be the ones who bring him up — this is actually known as Gore’s Law. (For the record, though, carbon offsets — provided they are legitimate and not faked — essentially amount to a charitable donation where the beneficiary is the atmosphere. Think of it that way.)

    3) Your grasp of climate is weak. Climate comes down to one, and only one, thing — the Earth’s energy (im)balance. This is fundamentally a factor of three things: Insolation, albedo, and the thermal properties of the atmosphere. The former hasn’t changed in at least 30 years (there’s even evidence of a slight decline, which leads to many of the “we’re going into an ice age!” denialist memes). The Earth’s albedo can and has been impacted by human means (to whit, this is why it cooled mid-century: Increased industrial emission of aerosols). Similarly, the thermal properties of the atmosphere easily can be impacted by human activity: Adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm it up, and this has been known for over a century now. The only question is how much, and you appear to argue that value is zero.

    4) You state that rising water vapor as an impact of rising temperature will “even [it] out”. Water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas. It just isn’t a forcing due to its low residency time; it acts as a feedback since its atmospheric concentration is heavily dependent on temperature. This means that a small increase in atmospheric temperature means a bit more water vapor goes into the atmosphere, which heats the atmosphere more, causing more water vapor, and so on. (It isn’t linear and will eventually reach a new equilibrium rather than running away on us, but I’m trying to explain this at your amateurish level.) Our understanding of water vapor’s role as a feedback points to it being a *positive* feedback, not a negative one, meaning that it will not “even out” any temperature increase — it will compound it.

    5) Weather at your house is not the same as climate over the globe. You seem to be confused yet again.

    6) The Prius/H2 myth has been thoroughly debunked. (That’s just one of several such debunkings.) That you mention it means you haven’t bothered to critically check your own positions and instead choose to parrot unsubstantiated claims that support your bias.

    …I could go on but my lunch break is already almost over.

    On one final note, look down, specifically underneath your right pinky. See that? It’s the [Return] key. It puts in paragraph returns. Your lack of paragraph breaks, compounded by your lack of spellchecking, only serves to paint you in a negative light when folk come to assess your credibility. When combined with the fractal wrongness of your positions, as shown above, you only dig yourself a deeper pit to hide in.

    Summer Glau

  4. #4 Marion Delgado
    December 19, 2008

    BPL:

    For that matter, evil Al Gore is a Christian (Southern Baptist) and a strong believer in free market capitalism. (For which, at the time, I critiqued Earth in the Balance endlessly, for letting the capitalist world off because Gore paid zero attention to externalities caused anywhere but the tax base of the multinational corporation involved).

    I am a non-christian and think capitalism is a pseudoscientific cult worse than marxism-leninism, but the idea that some sort of strawman pc leftisim is a requirement to be able to read data is just sad.

    It’s boilerplate. Everyone that believes in evolution is supposed to be Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, too.

    Because I don’t want Mike Godwin on my ass, I won’t point out which movement most used that tactic of compiling all its diverse enemies into a monolithic and threatening allied Other* – although the W admin is doing a good job of it, too.

    *And the irony was, of course, that this is usually a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  5. #5 shane
    December 19, 2008

    I am sorry for any type-o and grammar errors in my writings I blame MS Word for some of it but writing has never been my strong point but I’m working on it. And if you want me to stop writing just say so it will not hurt my feelings.

    I do understand how the climate works and my bad if I did not complete the thought on it. Yes green house gases do have an effect on global temperature to a degree. My observation is not 0 nor a very small part. I just see to many site that blame it solely on humanity and CO2 outputs.

    Here is a task for you, give me the amount of annual contrabutions of CFMs and Green house gases that Humans, Volcanoes, Forest fires, and Oceans give off.

    Yes with the increase in temperature it also increases the amount of water vapor. When I meant it could or can cause a reversal affect was not saying the affect would be immediately. Tell me what happens if you increase the amount of water vapor in the Polar Regions? Will you not have an increase in the amount of cloud cover? Will or will not there be an increase in snowfall at Polar Regions? If you have increase cloud cover does this reflect sun light out or trap heat in? If you have in crease snow does this reflect light or not?

    What was the cause of the 1816 cooling? Volcano emissions? Increased cloud cover?

    Why does that the earth has different seasons? Why is it that the southern hemisphere has winter when the north has summer? How it is that winter is colder then summer? Would we have seasons if the earth was at a 90 degree angle to the sun verses the 23 degree angle that we are currently at? And what would the seasons be like if we were at 45 degrees angle?

    As far as I know but Please correct me if I’m wrong, we have summer and winter due to the angle at which the sun hits the earth. So if the earth was at 90 degrees then we would have constant temperature. If it was at a 45 degree angle then our winter would be real cold and summers really hot. If this correct? Also if the earth average angle is between 20 and 24 degrees and we are at 23.x then would this affect the overall temperature?

    I read that the North Pole shifted 4 degrees is this true and if so how would it affect the weather?

    The oceans act as a heat sink. They help regulate the surface temperature so if the sun put out more radiation causing an increase in temperature they help buffers it. If there is a lack of solar activity this affect will help keep us warmer. Is this not right? Is this the reason why we see the change in the earth’s temperature a few years after a steady increase or decrease in solar activity?

    So lets put the sun aside for a bit, and look at just green house gases which help trap heat in keeping the planet warmer. Oh if there is no sun output then what redaction will the green house gasses be able to trap. Oh my bad a bit of sarcasm, sorry.
    Let say that the sun was a constant and did not change its output. And no volcanoes to screw with the climate. We now have GHG, Ocean currents, Ocean levels, trade winds, polar caps, and what else I’m missing something here? Ok let just go with that.
    Earth gets warmer because of increasing GHG with melts the polar caps. Now one of two things will happen here. If the sea levels rise then that may change ocean currents by connecting bodies of water casting What? Or just the arctic melts causing the desalination of the north Atlantic and the arctic sea. That would do what? Would it increase the amount of water in the air crating cloud cover possibly causing it to get colder?

    I got to run will be back later.

  6. #6 Bernard J.
    December 20, 2008

    (I started this hours ago whilst doing more productive things, and I have been gazumped several times by other respondents, and especially by Brian D’s excellent post, but what the heck – I’ll proffer my two bits anyway just for the record…)

    Shane.

    Global Warming has become a new religion by (sic) environmentalist (sic) and those that (sic) want to take your freedoms away… They don’t want you to be free to travel when you want, or to drive what you want. They want to say were (sic) and how you can live and at what temperature you can heat or cool your house. What lights you can use… They (sic) green movement want to control every aspect of your life even what you eat, that sounds like Communism to me.

    Erm, maybe it’s just me, but those rambles ‘sound like’ the sort that someone touched by a little paranoia might come up with.

    Do you check under your bed every night before going to sleep?

    As to what it is that you deny, how about the ‘A’ in AGW?

    Now what I was saying about GW as the new religion is that there are some that are trying to use GW as a way to kill capitalism. They do not want use to be free and want to control what we can and can’t do. You can say that I’m paranoid here if you want

    Ok, since you insist – you’re paranoid.

    [W]hen some one tells you that you can drive your car or heat your house because you are killing the planet and tell you what light you can buy then we got a problem

    Yes, but it’s not the problem that you believe it to be.

    The problem is that if we continue to drive our cars the way that we do, or to heat our houses the way that we do, then the whole planet will pay a hefty price. No-one’s saying that we can’t have transport and heating – just that we need to be a bit more clever about it if we’re all going to expect such luxuries.

    And in energetic terms they are luxuries. Have you ever sat down to calculate the energy budgets required for sustaining these human activities? Have you ever tried to calculate the energy budgets required to provide every human on the planet now, and in the next few generations, with the standard of energy consumption that the Western countries currently maintain?

    Nice incoherent ramble about the heat island effect: it will probably come as a great surprise to you to find that scientists have understood about the ‘effect’ for decades and take it into account. If you only glean your material from denialist sites you wouldn’t be aware of this.

    And who is to say what the average temperature is really supposed to be.

    The point is not what average temperature is supposed to be, but rather how quickly it increases to a point where ecosystems, and attendant ecosystem functions, cannot cope. In the past species and ecosystems have adapted over evolutionary scales, or have become extinct. With the rapid forcing resulting from human emissions we are essentially removing any chance of evolutionary adaptation, so the choice for many species is… extinction. And if humans are fortunate enough to avoid extinction, well, there’s still a significant potential for a much less congenial environment for future generations.

    If you don’t understand this you obviously do not understand how reliant humans are on the biosphere, once you lift up the skirts of technology.

    But lets say the green house gases did make the temperature rise.

    They do. Whether we ‘say’ it or not.

    It would also increase the amount of water vapor in the air. This can cause a reverse affect so it balances out. I will try to write up an article explaining it in detail with references.

    Oo, goodie – physics. Your article will be anticipated with much enthusiasm by those here who have read and worked with just this sort of material in their professional lives.

    Seriously, I would suggest that you uncurl your fingers from their tight grip around the denialist pseudoscience that you’ve brushed against, and start here in answering your questions. Read the physics and the analyses performed by real scientists, and not the cobbled-together factoids of the ideologues and shills who haunt the denialist sites you seem to favour.

  7. #7 jemima
    December 20, 2008

    Shane many of those are the kind of excellent questions that would be addressed in courses on climate, meteorology, geography (I guess), and so on.

    Online there are good resources like Wikipedia and the IPCC (assuming you haven’t been prejudiced against the latter by others’ opinions).

  8. #8 Barton Paul Levenson
    December 20, 2008

    shane posts:

    But lets say the green house gases did make the temperature rise. It would also increase the amount of water vapor in the air. This can cause a reverse affect so it balances out.

    Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, shane.

  9. #9 Barton Paul Levenson
    December 20, 2008

    shane writes:

    Here is a task for you, give me the amount of annual contrabutions of CFMs and Green house gases that Humans, Volcanoes, Forest fires, and Oceans give off.

    According to the US Geological Survey, volcanoes emit about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide a year. Human technology emits about 30 billion.

    The oceans emit about 90 billion tons of carbon (not CO2) a year and take in 92; they are a net sink for carbon dioxide. This is the main reason carbon dioxide is not rising even faster in the atmosphere than it is.

    I don’t know about forest fires but I suspect the amount is negligible compared to human emissions.

  10. #10 Anarchist606
    December 22, 2008

    Creationism and Climate Denialsim: Both are ideologies that have a set conclusion they then seek to ‘prove’ (the opposite of what science should be) both are pointless to argue against as they can never admit they are wrong and there is no evidence you can present that will sway them (see previous ideological point), both fight their battles with obfuscation ‘cos they cannot win with the science, both claim there is a real debate to be had (there is just not where they are…) and both are funded by right-wing think tanks. Separated at birth? I think so.

  11. #11 Shane
    December 29, 2008

    After some long research I found what I was looking for. CO2 levels in the Atmosphere = about 383 ppm or about 0.083% of the air we breath. Yes it has increased over the last 150 year or more. But with the following data I can not say that it is cause buy Man or is the cause of GW there for I can not accept the argument for AGW. If you can give me different data that proves these numbers wrong I am open to it and will take it into consideration.
    I have listed all my Wiki sources which I seemed to be linked back to by many of the sites I was looking at from both sides, so I decided to just list the wiki ones to cut the length of this piece.

    First to get an idea of just how much CO2 we are talking about I wanted to find out the exact amount. I think one of the highest listing was something like387ppm, but wiki says 383ppm and 0.0383%. Almost all the charts I found did not run off a 0 axes but like 280 axes so the charts look worse then what they are.

    According to Wikipideda which you have mentioned as a good source
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere
    says that the earth’s atmosphere is
    780,840 ppmv (78.084%) nitrogen
    209,460 ppmv (20.946%) oxygen
    9,340 ppmv (0.9340%) argon
    383 ppmv (0.0383%) carbon dioxide
    18.18 ppmv (0.001818%) Neon
    5.24 ppmv (0.000524%) Helium
    1.745 ppmv (0.0001745%) Methane
    1.14 ppmv (0.000114%) Krypton
    0.55 ppmv (0.000055%) Hydrogen

    So next I wanted to compare the CO2 levels to the temperature runs. I looked at many site and all have roughly the same charts but very a little here and there depending on the point they are pushing.

    Here is a chart from junk science that shows CO2 levels and Temperature. And I see no coalition of the two over the 28 year track.
    < http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUSPol-m.htm>
    the CO2 seam to have a steady increase while temperature seem to dip, maybe the chart is wrong. So I when to other site and and I seem to be having a problem finding data or charts that directly compare Global temperatures and CO2 in resent years. Most are long term pulled from ice cores over thousands of year
    s with some drastic spikes. Like the next Few which were link back to wiki.
    <
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.png>

    Ice core data
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice-core-isotope.png
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

    After numerous charts like these here it seems that CO2 follows temperature change. I noticed that all the sites that correlate temperature to CO2 never seem to put the two on the same chart. Why is this?
    After seeing this I decided to look up more on CO2 and its contributors and I found more of what I already new but my opinion out this is what I found. There is no real way to measure the actual amount of CO2 coming from Man, Volcanoes, oceans, and other earthly Natural sources. There are 2 main monitoring station and they are both on volcanoes so what else could it we compare it to? I did find this chart on several sights saying that its Fossil fuels.
    Carbon flux and fossil fuel
    < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_History_and_Flux_Rev.png>

    But I see a problem here, CO2 started to go up before Fossil fuel burning and did not follow the same trend, interesting. I went back to the ice cores because I saw some solar reading in the ice, I found that the temperature and Co2 followed two things Dust in the air and solar output. With higher reading of dust in the ice shows lower CO2 and temperatures. Also when comparing solar activity with CO2 the CO2 level seem to rise with solar activity as well.
    Temperature, CO2, and Sunspots
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg

    Carbon-14 production

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14-sunspot.svg
    So from this it tells me that the sun is the biggest contributor to temperature and CO2. if you block the sun with dust the temperature drops and so does CO2. unblocked Sun with higher output means higher temperatures and CO2.

    This is why I do not believe in AGW.

    more sunspot stuff
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot-temperature-10000yr.svg

  12. #12 Dano
    December 29, 2008

    Wow. Somehow Shane got [unkill]ed and I read the above.

    Shane, dude: you’re hotter than Galileo, dude! You need to publish, man! Right away!

    Best,

    D

  13. #13 MarkusR
    December 30, 2008

    From Shane’s site:
    Limiting the speed limit to 55 will not say gas I have 4 cars and every 1 of them get better mpg at speed over 55.

    You guys have devoted way too much time to this guy.

  14. #14 shane
    December 30, 2008

    MarkusR
    If you don’t agree with the 55mph statement then that’s your opinion.

    Some cars will get better gas mileage at 55 mph. but most of those cars were built before the 90s. A cars gas mileage depends on 3 main factors, no. 1 Weight, no. 2 Power, ie horse power and flb torque, and no. 3 efficiency range of the engine under load.

    So if the desired speed is 70 mph then when you build the car, you have to match the power of the engine to weight of the car so that the engine is not over worked in moving the weight of the car around. Then you have to find the efficiency rang of the engine. This is part of the power band that then engine works most efficient at, (the maximum amount of power with the least amount of effort or fuel consumption). So if your engine efficiency rang is from 1800 to 2500 rpm with a given load, then you would want your vehicle to be geared to run at 70 at about 1800 to 2000 rpm in the final gear.

    So let’s say that you wanted to run at 90 as you’re cursing speed. You would need the correct gears to lower your engine speed to within your engines efficiency range in the final gear but you also would need the engine to be able to effectively push the weight at that speed. Then you best MPG would be at 90 mph.

    However you would not put at 90hp Geo Metro engine in a 4000 lb vehicle and expect to get the 45mpg that the Metro got at 65 mph. The power to weight ratio is off so the 1.x L 90 hp metro engine will get ok mpg at a very slow speed as long at there is no additional load placed on the engine.

    Look at the EPA estimated mpg for a Corvette and a Miata. In the city the Miata get the best MPG hands down at 20 mpg but on the high way they get the almost the same at estimated 26 Corvette to 28 mpg Miata. The Miata weighs 3200 lb and the Corvette at 3400lb.

    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

  15. #15 Misha
    July 18, 2009

    Thoroughly entertaining blog and comments. I’m six months late on it but hey.

    I have two comments:

    1. I agree that saying that Christians believe in Bronze Age Fairy Stories is simply inaccurate. It implies that all Christians believe in meaningless stories, rather than learn important lessons on morality and reality in the messages of the stories. Faith in the stories can be faith in the meaning of the stories.

    2. More importantly, I think part of the problem with anthropogenic global warming denialists is that we haven’t really understood where they are coming from. I get the impression that these are people who come across an authority figure of some kind saying common sense things that cast doubt on climate change. So, these people do research and find that there are lots of prominent people and websites that also have similar doubts.

    And then they come to sites like this, or to neutral sites, and spout all the information that they have heard. What I think is happening is that they are really asking, “I heard this information that seems plausible, is it accurate?” But for some reason there isn’t really a good, authoritative source on this, written by climate scientists and presented for the layman. This place would have a growing list of all the proposed information that appears to counter AGW, and simple, easy to understand explanations (maybe with advanced information in links to studies if they want to explore more). The explanation would have to explain why it is possible to misunderstand a particular aspect (if that’s the case), but that the current understanding is so and so for these and these reasons. Of course, I’m sure a site that does this at least partly exists. But somehow I have not seen this kind of user friendly, informative, AUTHORITATIVE site.

    The most important point, though, is that I wonder if it will help if people who have a good grasp on the science here assume that these denialists are really just asking for the truth.

    (And the truth, is that companies want to make as much money as possible.)

    I’m not a denier, but I came here to find out what the deal was with a sitting senator posting propaganda. And, no disrespect intended, a blog isn’t an authoritative source.

  16. #16 Misha
    July 18, 2009

    I.e. there are zillions of blogs and unless you already know the blog scene and the information, it’s very hard to tell which are written by scientists and which are written by kids.

  17. #17 frankis
    July 19, 2009

    Here are three of the best as they occur to me Misha:

    Real Climate

    Coby Beck

    John Cook’s “Sceptical Science”

  18. #18 Misha
    July 21, 2009

    Thanks for putting it there in a very easy to find place, frankis.

    The big problem is that I haven’t heard of these sites! (Well I have heard of Real Climate, but not in any mainstream place.) Skeptical Science looks like a great site.

    I’ll also add this:
    Source Watch page on common claims and scientific rebuttals. I haven’t heard anything biased about Sourcewatch.

    The problem really is that when Congress requests scientific information you would think they would immediately fact check it, cross reference it with other sources, and then accept or reject it. And if they accept it they would tell us about the problem and then create legislation that acts towards a solution. Because they are not doing this, it makes people skeptical.

    What I don’t get is that people who own energy companies are also on this planet, as are our Congresspeople. How can they ignore or actively attempt to muddy evidence? I have the feeling this is not done out of some nefarious reason, but really some unconscious blinders or something.