Open thread

John Innes says:
“The spelling of Ballarat is interesting. As far as I remember (correction invited), the city spelled the name one way and the railway spelled it another, I think with a double”a” in the middle rather than a single one. Anyone know more about it?”
This reminds me of Smartsville, California, a town founded old Gold Rush era up in the Sierra Nevada Foothills.
Way back when, when submitting paperwork to establish postal service, someone from the federal gov’t left out the “s” in the middle, and it became “Smartville” to the federal gov’t.
This soon bled over onto all the maps, and official documents and apparently the State of California gov’t documents as well.
So even though all the world of officialdom and even the road signs called it “Smartville, ” the locals know it as “Smartsville,” and will remind you. So the sign on the Post Office reads “Smartville,” the sign on the local Fire Dept. across the street says “Smartsville”
But recently, after years of trying, supposedly they recently won the right to get their “s” back.
Another Gold Rush town about 50 miles from there, apparently had even even more of a beef with the federal gov’t. Back in the 1800’s the little hamlet of “Rough and Ready” broke with the Union, declared independence, and became “The Republic of Rough and Ready.” I don’t know if they ever actually had a skirmish with the union troops over it, but their independence was short-lived.
When the 4th of July rolled around, and people started looking forward to the celebrations, they eventually figured out they had nothing to celebrate. So they rejoined the Union.

Contrary to some on this thread, I would like to give my thumbs up to the Sea Ice posts.
It’s one of the huge focal points, at least from the drum-pounding media’s perspective, of the whole AGW controversy.
It’s a great way to examine the reality up there in contrast to to what’s being stated by the latest “press-it release-science” and gov’ t science institutions, and to get a gauge on their accuracy. And also to compare some of the parameters involved which Steve has pointed out, with the linear decline scenario.
Also, it’s nice to watch how the seasonal accumulation and melt actually works, and some of the factors involved. And also to look forward to seeing what happens at the end of the year.
It kind of reminds of something that they call a ‘benchmark” in radio. That is something that you know that comes up regularly, like say Paul Harvey’s “the Rest of the Story,” and gives you one more reason to stay tuned.

Thanks for the open thread, I’ll take the opportunity for a comment that’s percolating in my head. I have always been a lefty greenie. I was hugely worried about AGW and even had a small website on the topic, we have solar hot water, and drive a Prius. My politics have always been left-leaning, and I note with Anthony’s trip round Australia, that many of the venues he’s speaking in and the organisations hosting Anthony are right wing organisations. The MSM’s that speak sceptical views are more right wing than left. It seems that there is a rule embedded in here and elsewhere that to be left-wing means you must believe in AGW. Now I’m trying to hold 2 seemingly opposing views in my head, moderate left wing, and climate science scepticism.
You’ve convinced me on the science, but from my philosophical and political viewpoints I often feel on the outer here. This is larger issue than just me. The right wing, one gathers, are pretty happy to hear the sceptical argument (although in Australia its mostly only the far right), the converts from here on in are going to be further to the left of the political spectrum. They could well feel like me.
Is this a political blog, or a scientific blog? I love the articles on the science, but don’t like the (very few) ad homs and the unverified cuts from right-wing news sources. I know Anthony and the mods work very hard on this, but its inevitable they slip through occasionally. This is a great site, I check it daily, and enjoy the arctic sea ice stories and other based on science . Also love the respectful comments made with genuine thought behind them. I wonder if any others feel like me on the politics?
HB

RE: LearDog says: (June 26, 2010 at 10:31 am) “Spector – The idea of a ‘stinger’ inserted in the wellbore is predicated on assumption that the flow is coming up inside the casing.”
In this case, I believe all I was assuming was a clean bore-hole in solid bedrock and an expandable diameter plug that, I would hope, could be designed to produce a Morrison-like seal on the expected available surface. This *is* one case where the “devil would be in the details” of implementation. I would think that the degree of expansion required would depend on the minimum clear open diameter available for insertion.
Potential problems I see with the ‘nuclear option’ would be the formation of fissures or cracks in the bedrock around the explosion that might allow continued seepage and the potential radioactive contamination of the gulf biosphere.

LearDog says: (June 26, 2010 at 7:22 am)   Roger – Nice praise – I agree entirely. But is the main idea to provide funding? Or control content?
1.   Control of content is not the intention of a proposed “editorial board”. The purpose of such a ‘board” would be to ensure that authors do not rush into print before the ink on their work is dry. Some of the material appearing on WUWT is modified by the authors following publication, and would have had far more value if there has been a moment of contemplation before it had rolled from the virtual presses. Editors can provide that cushion. Right or wrong is not my point; it just must not be raw.
2.   Funding: No paywalls. No mandatory subscriptions. It would require individuals to willingly commit to support.
     I cannot see how WUWT can keep pace with its growing importance unless Anthony and others can devote other than “free time” to it
__________
Ken Harvey says: (June 26, 2010 at 1:02 pm) Great. We could do a Wikipedia and keep out any view that…
Either I put my point badly, Greg; or you missed it entirely. No. I am not advocating censorship.

If I can pose a question to the moderators.
How do you handle comments coming in 24hrs a day ? I write from east coast Australia in the afternoon, and have noticed that later in the afternoon moderating time takes longer, this is understandable, it is bed time in the US. Do you really moderate 24/7 and would you prefer comments to be submitted at a more respectable (US) time ?
[REPLY – We do our best. Feel free to post anytime. Your comments go in queue and we catch them as we can. (Thanks for your consideration. All points of view welcome here.) ~ Evan]

Re: Spector says: June 26, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Potential problems I see with the ‘nuclear option’ would be the formation of fissures or cracks in the bedrock around the explosion that might allow continued seepage and the potential radioactive contamination of the gulf biosphere.
—
I think this shares problems with the ‘plug’ approach, ie the geology and countering the upward pressure from the well. As I understand the way the Russians did it with nukes, they used a nuke to shunt a rock formation sideways to seal their well. I’ve no idea what the geology around this well is, and whether it’d be possible to do similar, or practical to drill for that rather than letting the relief wells (hopefully) do their job.
Usual result of underground detonations is a cavity, which then usually collapses. It seems to me there’s a large risk of fracturing the rock as you say, and making the problem much worse. If the relief wells fail, maybe it’ll be an option to use one of those, but I’d hate to be the geologists making that call.

Hope this isn’t too late to generate some feedback.
The more I come to understand about ‘climate change’ the more I am convinced that it is the organisation and ‘soicology’ of the climate science industry – as an artefact lying somewhere between academe and politics – that contributes greatly to poorly evidenced opinions and theories becoming the received wisdom of ‘the consensus’. Organise it differently and you’d likely get a different set of results.
In the pure scientific/statistics areas, many people contribute greatly…McIntyre and Montford have shown me great things…Monckton has amused and enlightened me..Booker, North and Delingpole have swept away vast acres of AGW bullshit. The list could and should be much much longer…but space does not permit.
But who is studying and writing about what I crudely call the organisation and sociology of climate science?? I’d love to understand more and see if my own nasecnt ideas have any value…and/or maybe to contribute something original and helpful myself.
Hope this isn’t too rambling…its been (by UK standards) a very hot day, and I’m just bacj from my libgest bicycle ride of the year. All and any ideas gratefully received.