Wednesday, 14 December 2011

The retreat has begun!

From the eminent blog NoTricksZone run by the intrepid P Gosselin we learn about the beginning of the desperate retreat of the warmists. Gosselin reports:
Usually warmists screech that humans are 95% responsible for the recent warming, and that huge positive water vapor feedbacks will get involved in the future. So it’s not very often you hear a warmist admit that humans perhaps could be just half responsible for the warming of the last 100 years.
This is what German climate expert Professor Mojib Latif said in an interview this morning with NDR public radio.
And what did Latif Say? Fasten you seat belts, folks, he said this:
"The fact is that there is climate change. The fact is that man is also at least 50% responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.”
Yes, your eyes are not deceiving you: he said "50%". That is 0.35 degrees! That's practically nothing. It is clear that the global warming rats are leaving the sinking climate change ship. It is a nearly incredible u-turn relative to the orthodox ICCCP position. According to the ICCCP bible:
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
Of course, you can expect Latif to be hounded and vilified by the warmist inquisition after this unambiguous admission that the ICCCP is wrong and there is no climate threat. He is surely not going to get any more science grants after he has deserted the dogma of the global warming religion: his days at the gravy train are past. But this is a sure sign that the Berlin Wall of the eco-fascistic mega bureaucracy is beginning to crack, and the cracks will become larger and more until the whole unholy edifice comes tumbling down just like the walls of Jericho!


   

Saturday, 26 November 2011

More Climategate 2.0 - the arrogance of the Team

"...we know they are as black
as Beelzebub's rear end."
The MSM is really botching the great Climategate 2.0 scandal. They even publish articles trying to "explain" what the quoted passages mean, and the explanations are often fabricated by asking the people that sent them. We know perfectly well what those quotes mean, and  after reading them we simply don't trust the infernally corrupted criminals that wrote them so why should we believe in their explanations?  They are just trying to whitewash themselves, but we know they are as black as Beelzebub's rear end! But the MSM are all part of the NWO, so we should not be surprised.

So it seems it is once again up to the free blogosphere to tell the truth. We can all do an effort by searching through the emails for evidence of evildoing and publish this evidence on various blogs. You can find the Climategate 2.0 emails at http://foia2011.org. Just start looking for suitable phrases and I promise you: there is plenty to be found.

Such as this email (#20), which reveals the boundless arrogance of the Team. Is it a scientist who is writing this, or is it an activist hellbent on the destruction of Western civilization? The answer should be obvious: no true scientist should ever resort to the kind of ridicule and contempt towards the famous and widely respected hockey-stick breaker Ross McKitrick that is expressed here. When the Joe Sixpacks get to read something like this, they are surely going to be justifiably dismayed by the Team, and they are obviously going to sympathize with Ross McKitrick. Equally shocking is the way the Team is controlling the complicit MSM in order to implement their vicious smear campaigns!

Hello all. Ah ha--the latest idiot--McKitrick--reenters the scene. He and another incompetent had a book signing party at the US Capitol--Mike
MacCracken went and he can tell you about it--last summer. McKitrick also had an article--oped, highly refereed of course--in the Canadian National Post on June 4 this year. Here is the URL that worked back then:
http://www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=045D5241-FD00-4773-B816-76222A771778

It was a scream. He argued there is no such thing as global temperature
change, just local--all natural variablity mostly. To prove this he had a graph of temperature trends in Erie Pennsylvania for the past 50 years (this is from memory) which showed a cooling. THat alone proves nothing, but when reading the caption I noticed the trend was for temperature in October and November!! So one station for two months consitituted his "refutation" of global warming--another even dumber than Lomborg economist way out of depth and polemicizing. I showed it to a class of Stanford freshman, and one of them said: "I wonder how many records for various combinations of months they had to run through to find one with a cooling trend?" THe freshman was smarter than this bozo. It is improtant to get that op-ed to simply tell all reporters how unbelievably incompetent he is, and should not even be given the time of day over climate issues, for which his one "contribution" is laughably incompetent. By the way, the Henderson/Castles stuff he mentions is also mostly absurd, but that is a longer discussion you all don't need to get into--check it out in the UCS response to earlier Inhofe polemics with answers I gave them on Henderson/Castles if you want to know more about their bad economics on top of their bad climate science. "Enjoy", CHeers, Steve

Thursday, 24 November 2011

IPCC and the Team use magicc!

Will this wicked and wanton sorceress be a lead author of
the next IPCC report? 
New revelations about the boundless depravity of the Team and the Stygian darkness in the corrupted heart of the IPCC!  They claimed to do science, but a newly released Climategate 2.0 email has uncovered evidence that the degenerate organisation whose mission is claimed to be to summarize climate science actually is dabbling in unholy and blasphemous magiccal rites. From email #182:
Sarah,
I realize that you have got a copy of this.
What I am concerned about is the use of MAGICC in AR4. It is likely that the only way that MAGICC can be legitimately used is for it to be (again!) calibrated against the various AOGCMs being run for AR4. The AOGCM data that will be available this time will allow us to do this more comprehensively than your TAR analysis. I think this is something we should do together this time.
 They are even conspiring to make their filthy black arts legitimate! This can in no way be allowed - such debased practices must be severely punished by the Law!  And what are they going to use the tar for? To smear their brave and truth-loving opponents? And what unspeakable evil from the nether abysses of Hell are AOGCMs? And exactly what wicked and debauched "something" are Sarah and Ben going to do together? it is just getting worse and worse. Why are the MSM not reporting this?
Thank the Lord that blog science can be a bulwark against this avalanche of devilry. There are still rational and skeptical people like myself with both feet safely planted in the realm of reality who can counter the lies and deceptions of the IPCC and its Team!

Wednesday, 23 November 2011

FOIA2011 emails reveal secret alarmist base

The new and better updated Climategate 2.0 scandal has led to some more shocking revelations about the nefarious crimes of the fascisto-alarmists, red and yellow and green like traffic lights. This is going to be the final nail in the coffin of the global warmning scam. Look what I found among the liberated emails  (#3346) after a few seconds of browsing:
Dear Phil,

   Thank you very much for this, I'll have a proper read now. I appreciate your advice.

   I'll perhaps try and touch base with you next week,

   Best regards,


   Jon
 Now, what on earth is the "base" they are talking about? it can only mean one thing:


And this is from #3307:
Just to you - seems you could go a little further and be more clear as Stefan suggests.
     Not a major change. Your call, though. Thanks, Peck
What do they mean by "major"? That is a military rank. Obviously, they are organizing some kind of army:

From #1858  we get the following revelation about an evil network of mind-controlled lackeys that cover the entire world:
The ultimate strategy is to get a collaborative centre at a number of
   regions throughout the world and build a network of like-minded people
Finally, in #1687 we find irrefutable evidence that the global warming cabal has been colluding with Google in order to prevent the truth about so-called global warming to come out:
As you know, I was also going to follow-up with Google in California
(and maybe NY), about the data visualization angle and their overall
interest. Not sure if this would be something to also make it into the
NYT foray, but please send over whatever you have as update from the
Exeter meeting that could possibly build upon the work that Philip,
Stefan, and I have done.
These terrible secrets we uncovered after only a couple of minutes of browsing in the FOIA2011 archives.  Who knows what other evil conspiracies and sinister plots are waiting to be brought into the light by blog science? Lots, I can tell you, lots!

Friday, 28 October 2011

Time to stand up for Willis

A lot of people have reason to be upset by the abominable BEST propaganda campaign. But few people have been as badly abused by the sly BEST man Muller as our dear Willis! But Willis stands firm! In a comment, he says:
Me, I’ve had it up to here with being lied to by Muller, I’m fed up to my eye-teeth with his tricks and his whoring for the media. Sure, I could pretend Muller is an honest and honorable man like you recommend. But his actions have shown him to be a cunning snake. It is not my habit to address snakes as though they were honorable men.

Note, however, that none of these are “ad hominems”, as I make no claim that Muller being a snake has affected his mathematics or altered his results in the slightest. The data is the data, it says what it says despite Muller’s reptilian ways. I am not arguing against the data, there is no ad-hominem.
(The snake in the picture represents Muller, by the way. This is not an ad hominem, but rather an ad serpentem! I was thinking about using a picture of a whore instead, but this is a family blog).

Let not Willis stand alone. Today we must all be Willis! I am Willis, you are Willis, we are all Willis!

Also read what Dick Lindzen has to say about BEST.

Wednesday, 26 October 2011

BEST is up to no good

Hope you enjoyed the funny title of today's post. It is about the disgraceful Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project which now has announced its very uninteresting and non-peer-reviewed results. All it proves is that one can manipulate temperature data so that Earth seems to be warming. But we already knew that, didn't we?
Powered by mp3skull.com
But how do they then explain this graph form Newsweek 1975? This amazing graph was revealed by Steven Goddard. Comparing BEST to Orwell's book 1984, he comments: "The cooling after 1950 has disappeared. Winston Smith would be proud!" As educated readers know, Winston Smith was the dictator in 1984 who oppressed his little brother.


The man behind BEST, Richard Muller, has only been pretending to be a skeptic. He is really a eco-warmo-fascist! How could he otherwise come up with an almost-copy of the  Hansen (NASA) and Jones (CRU) curves? He is actually on record as being part of the cult as late as 2008. Thanks to Tony Bummer at NewsBustiers for digging up that nugget! Fortunately, there are a few climate scientists with integrity still left, like Judith Curry!

There is only one scientifically correct response to Muller's skullduggery: to orchestrate a FOI request campaign against Berkeley until they have made all the data available, station by station and year by year! We will not rest until this has been achieved!

Anyhow, if it would be warming, it would not be due to human activities. This was decisively proved in July this year. I quote from ClimateChangeDispatch:

Greenhouse Gas Theory Trashed in Groundbreaking Lab Experiment
WRITTEN BY JOHN O'SULLIVAN | JULY 18 2011 

Greenhouse gas theory of global warming is refuted in momentous Mexican lab experiment. Results mean epic fail for doomsaying cult and climate taxes.

Professor Nasif Nahle of Monterrey, Mexico, backed by a team of international scientists, has faithfully recreated a famous experiment from 1909 to confirm that the greenhouse effect cannot cause global warming..

Astonishingly, the 1909 greenhouse gas experiment first performed by Professor Robert W. Wood at John Hopkins University hadn’t been replicated for a century. This despite over $100 billion spent by the man-made global warming industry trying to prove its case that carbon dioxide is a dangerous atmospheric pollutant.

The analogy had been that greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2) act like the glass in a greenhouse trapping heat in Earth’s atmosphere and if they build up (due to human industrial emissions) the planet would dangerously overheat.

Nahle Nails Shut Climate Scare Coffin

At the Biology Cabinet laboratories Professor Nahle was able to confirm the astounding findings: Wood was right all along. After peer-review the results confirm that the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ is solely due to the blockage of convective heat transfer within the environment in which it is contained i.e. as in this case, a lab flask.

Indeed, it is the glass of the lab flask (or ‘greenhouse’) that caused the “trapped” radiation all along. The flask (or greenhouse) being what scientists refer to as a ‘closed system’; while Earth’s atmosphere isn’t closed at all but rather open to space allowing heat energy to freely escape.

Read rest here.
So that's it. Global warming theory is dead, and has got the final nail in its rotting coffin! Ha ha ha ha!
Powered by mp3skull.com
Take that, Richard Muller!

Coincidentally, the fat priest of the climate cult Al Gore unintentionally proved the same thing when he faked a greenhouse gas experiment during his "24 hours of climate reality" propaganda campaign about a month ago. This is the kind of stuff the media should report about! Read the shocking truth at WUWT:


Thank God there are people who - unlike Muller - knows how to dedicate their time to important things! Thank you, Anthony Watts!

Sunday, 9 October 2011

Galileo was a skeptic, damn it!


It is really going downhill with the American Institute of Physics. They have just published a disgraceful article by some individual by the name of Steven Sherwood in Physics Today. This is really some of the worst garbage I have read in a long time, and that is saying a lot! Sherwood writes about the low degree of acceptance of the so-called climate science and global warming hypothesis among the general public, and compares it to how the ideas of Copernicus and Galileo about the round Earth were opposed. They also compare it to how Einstein's theory of relativity was opposed.



Pardon my French, but this is utterly ridiculous and complete stinking bullshit! Hansen and Mann and Gore cannot be compared to Copernicus and Galileo and Einstein! The latter three were geniuses who were persecuted by the Spanish Inquisition. Hansen and Mann and Gore are not geniuses, qutie the contrary. Hansen and Mann and Gore are the Spanish Inquisition! The people who really are persecuted today are those who dares to speak up against the global warming dogma: brave people like Marc Morano, Anthony Watts, The Lord Monckton, James Delingpole, Andrew Bolt, senator Inhofe, and all the brave people in the Galileo movement. And we can also add Erl Happ to this list, after his brilliant article about high level clouds and surface temperature at WUWT. These are the Copernicuses and Galileos and Einsteins of today!

And what's this thing about Einstein? Einstein was wrong, damn it! Haven't they heard that at the American Institute of Physics? What a bunch of dolts!

Bryce in WSJ: Five Truths About Climate Change

Robert Bryce has a must-read-at-once-and-blog-about opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, where he states Five Truths About Climate Change. Here are the five truths (excerpts):
1) The carbon taxers/limiters have lost. Carbon-dioxide emissions have been the environmental issue of the past decade. .... Here's a reality check: During the same decade that Mr. Gore and the IPCC dominated the environmental debate, global carbon-dioxide emissions rose by 28.5%. ....
2) Regardless of whether it's getting hotter or colder—or both—we are going to need to produce a lot more energy in order to remain productive and comfortable.
3) The carbon-dioxide issue is not about the United States anymore. Sure, the U.S. is the world's second-largest energy consumer. But over the past decade, carbon-dioxide emissions in the U.S. fell by 1.7%. ... Meanwhile, China's emissions jumped by 123% over the past decade and now exceed those of the U.S.
4) We have to get better—and we are—at turning energy into useful power. .... Nearly all of the things we use on a daily basis—light bulbs, computers, automobiles—are vastly more efficient than they were just a few years ago. ....
5) The science is not settled, not by a long shot. Last month, scientists at CERN, the prestigious high-energy physics lab in Switzerland, reported that neutrinos might—repeat, might—travel faster than the speed of light. If serious scientists can question Einstein's theory of relativity, then there must be room for debate about the workings and complexities of the Earth's atmosphere.
Take that! The stupid tree-hugging people who wanted to cut emissions to save of from "the climate catastrophe" lost, and the rest of humanity won! Anyhow, whether there is a problem or not, we still need more energy. That is still much more important than any alleged climate threat. Other countries are  increasing their emissions, so why would we have to do anything? Devices are becoming increasingly more energy efficient, so we are going to want more devices and hence more energy in the future and cannot reduce emissions even if we wanted to. Finally, if Einstein - who was a bloody genius - can be wrong, why would we believe anything that those pesky climate scientists say? Or any scientists for that matter.
The whole thing reminds me about the discussion of pros and cons of slavery (before it was abolished). Now, I know that what I'm about to write might seem a bit politically incorrect, and I want to emphasize that I'm not advocating slavery (though I think it is important that we are allowed to discuss the issue). That most people think that slavery is wrong today is besides the point - we are considering the perfectly valid perspective of slave owners in the past. So here are five truths about slavery, as they might have been seen during the first half of the 19th century:
  1. The abolitionists have lost! There are actually more slaves that 10 years ago!
  2. We are going to need more slaves in order to remain productive and comfortable
  3. Slaves are not just about the United States. Other countries, like Russia, have them too.
  4. We are getting better at breeding and using the slaves.
  5. Newton has been proven wrong so the science is not settled about slavery. (I couldn't write "Einstein" here, because he wasn't born yet.)
Note that the above are not my personal views: they are just intended to illustrate the soundness of Bryce's five points by means of a historical analogy. And as a matter of fact, the alleged slave problem eventually solved itself, without the need for any "slave taxes" or any world governance. The explanation is simple: during the second half of the 19th century, industrialism made slavery obsolete. The former slaves became happy employees. And if there really is a climate problem, I'm sure that it will also soon be solved by itself, without any "carbon taxes" or world governance.

However, if we would try to reduce emissions, it would likely destroy industrialization, and we would have to resort to slavery again. So to be against Al Gore is actually to be against slavery!

Tuesday, 23 August 2011

NSF: It is reasonable to suspect Mann of falsifying data

An investigation by the National Science Foundation into the Climategate scandal has come to the conclusion that there are strong grounds for suspicions against Michael "Hide the decline" Mann and his accomplices. The report concludes:
"As noted above, no specific allegation or evidence of data fabrication or falsification was made to the University; rather, the University developed its allegation of data falsification based on a reading of publicly released emails, many of which contained language that reasonably caused individuals, not party to the communications, to suspect some impropriety on the part of the authors."
We were right all along. Finally, we have been vindicated! Now please can we get back all the countless billions of our tax-payers dollars and euros spent on this fraud?

Obviously, the Warmistas will desperately try to spin this in any ways they can! It's time to jump off the AGW bandwagon now, boys!

Update: As can be observed below, the forces of misdirection and desinformation are already gathering. There are some statements in the report that unfortunately are somewhat ambiguous when taken out of context, and it is those statements the trolls predictably are trying to spin. They include:
"Although the Subject's data is still available and still the focus of significant critical examination, no direct evidence has been presented that indicates the Subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results."
"Such scientific debate is ongoing, but does not, in itself, constitute evidence of research misconduct."
 "Concerning False Claims, 18 USC #287 and 31 USC ##3729-33 and False Statement, 18 USC #1001, we examined the elements of each suggested offense and have concluded that there is insufficient evidence of violation of any of these statutes to warrant investigation."
"We reviewed the emails and concluded that nothing contained in them evidenced research misconduct withing the definition of the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation. ... We found no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence."
While some unscrupulous individuals will claim that this means that Mann is innocent like a little lamb with a shiny white fleece that has just been white washed, we know that what it really says is that Mann and his Team have hidden all the evidence, just like they did "hide the decline of global temperatures the last decades." Indeed, we know and have always known that the Team-tribe is up to no good. Why are they trying to hide that Arabs colonized Greenland during the very very hot medieval period? We are very skeptical about the whole AGW thing, and nothing you say is ever going to change our mind! We stand up for the truth, against enviro-tyranny.

Update 2: Marc Morano at Climate Depot agrees with my analysis:
"It doesn't conclude there is 'nothing wrong' with Mann's conclusions, all it concludes is there is no basis to conclude he did anything improper WITH NSF FUNDING"
Precisely! Maybe Mann did his falsifications with money he stole from orphans, or earned by trafficking, or counterfeited, or got as bribes from the rising Soviet Union. Until that has been disproved, we have no choice but to consider him guilty as charged!

Sunday, 21 August 2011

Anthony Bright-Paul winner of 2011 von Monckhofen Award for Pedagogical Excellence



The prestigous von Monckhofen Award for Pedagogical Excellence goes this year, that is AD 2011, to Anthony Bright-Paul for his most pedagogical refutation of the greenhouse effect and hence also of the entire global warming climate change fraud. It is a demonstration of the most impeccable logic and brilliant clarity. Indeed, it is so clear and simple that even Al'Gore might be able to understand it provided he can get his big fat butt out of his jet plane for once. I'm especially impressed by the way Mr Bright-Paul uses beer as a vehicle of explanation and identification. Congratulations, Mr Bright-Paul! You are a most deserving winner.

As further motivation, I will simply let Mr Bright-Paul's text speak for itself:

The History of Science is the history of wrong conclusions, being eventually overturned by more evidence, or more correctly by logic. Even today, the data that science uncovers is more often than not misunderstood.
...
These questions concern the properties of gases. The question here is whether gases are active or passive?

Can Carbon Dioxide be frozen?
Can Carbon Dioxide be liquefied?
Can Carbon Dioxide be cooled?
Can Carbon Dioxide be warmed?
In this case I will suggest that the answer in every case must be, Yes. Carbon Dioxide can be made into Dry Ice, which is even colder than Water Ice, and can even cause frostbite. Carbon Dioxide can be liquefied and is often so done for ease of transportation. Carbon Dioxide can be cooled, as in Ice-Cold lager from a fridge. Carbon Dioxide can be warmed as in warm beer. So the question is this: Is Carbon Dioxide active or passive? Please note above the use of the passive tense.

Let us do the same with Water Vapour?
...
I hope so – in all cases it is clear that gases are passive. They re-act. In no way can a Gas jump out of a Gasholder or a can, like a Genie, and say ‘Tickety-Boo!’ ( I am willing to be corrected!)
...
What conclusion, what logical conclusions must follow from that? If gases are passive, if gases can be warmed or can be cooled, if gases have no inherent temperature of their own, then there is no way that they can cause warming. They are either warmed or cooled.

If we put a potato a microwave oven and switch on the power, the potato can be baked within 10 minutes. But put the same potato in a freezer, how long will it take to bake? Is there a hot spot in the freezer? And yet our noble scientists have been searching for a Hot Spot at 10 Kilometres high in the Troposphere, that is some 33,000 feet! It is not a question of Science it is a question for Logic; it is a question of Philosophy.

The crux of the argument is philosophical and the nub of it is logic. To suggest that Man is somehow creating radical changes in Climate is an inadmissible conclusion. And as to Man warming the Globe, it is a complete impossibility.

Wednesday, 17 August 2011

Underground volcanoes, not humans, are causing rising CO2

Our friends at WUWT recently had a post about underwater volcanoes. In this post, I would like to discuss another kind of volcanoes that have been sadly (or deliberately) overlooked in the climate debate: underground volcanoes.
Underground volcano (courtesy USA Today

We know very little about what can be found deep in the Earth's crust. NASA is sending rockets to penetrate Uranus, but very little is done to probe the depths of the bowels of our own home planet, mother Earth. This is a sad state of affairs. Hence, we don't know how many underground volcanoes there are. There might be billions, hidden from our eyes by miles of Earth's crust. There might be huge underground volcanoes, the size of Alaska, and we have no idea about them. And they are all emitting carbon dioxide on a scale that dwarfs our puny human emissions. The so-called "climate scientists" simply haven't taken this into account in their "models" of the so-called "carbon cycle". The IPCC has, not surprisingly, been silent about the topic. Image the arrogance of climate modelers who assume that they know all the major natural processes. Let alone their impact. Just tweak the right parameters and viola the model fits the data, even though it is incomplete. “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
Temperature and CO2 the last centuries according to E. Beck
The graph above shows how carbon dioxide has fluctuated the last centuries. It obviously has no relation to human activities. The only explanation is underground volcanoes: we can notice that they are both emitting CO2 and causing warming. Of course, the eruption of a single Alaska-sized underground volcano under the Arctic sea would be sufficient to explain the melting of the Artic sea ice (which is now by the way recovering). And yet, we would never be able to detect that volcano. We should learn to be humble about how little we really know about Earth and its climate, and the secrets it hides in its interior.
Mole drill for exploring Earth's interior
Indeed, until we know what secrets lie below Earths surface, before we have sent expeditions into the depths of the planet, it would be futile and a pointless waste to try to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere by burning less fossil fuels. Futile! Pointless!


Saturday, 13 August 2011

Joe Bastardi repeats my argument

In a guest post at WUWT, meteorologist Joe Bastardi repeats the argument I made recently about how the recent changes in temperature and CO2 don't correlate and this shows that CO2 doesn't drive temperature, and hence temperature drives CO2. I showed this graph as evidence:
Bastardi shows this one, which is very similar:
Note that Bastardi has added a big blue arrow to show that temperatures have been going down the last 15 years.

Great minds think alike! (Though I wish Bastardi would have given me due credit).

Bastardi's excellent guest post is a follow up of an interview on Fox News. It is compulsory watching!

Thursday, 11 August 2011

Monckton in NZ TV


Here is great interview in New Zealand television with the Lord Monckton. He expresses his lack of confidence about the peer review process (in science, not in economics where it is reliable). He also explains that professor John Abraham is about to face a libel charge due to the lies he has been spreading about the good Lord. The Climate Scum supports the good Lord in his effort to go to court. Such measures are sadly necessary to ensure an open and civil debate about the climate fraud. John Abraham, in his puerile efforts to discredit Monckton, is clearly out to intimidate all independent thinkers and lovers of free markets.

We also support the efforts of John Coleman and 30,000 scientist to sue Al Gore.

As a bonus, here is philosopher of science and radio host Glenn Beck revealing Al'Gore's plans to become a dictator and explaining how science funding works.



Monday, 8 August 2011

Salby demolishes AGW theory

From that excellent blog Climate Etc, I have learned about a new paradigm-shifting scientific article by climate professor Murry Salby from Macquarie University. Well, strictly speaking it is a pod cast from a talk Salby gave at a policy forum of the Sydney Institute, so we cannot see Salby's graphs and other data, but nevertheless, it is important enough to warrant a discussion. Heck, the less data the more to discuss!

The Earth’s carbon cycle is not a topic on which I have any expertise. Therefore, I instead give you carbon cycle expert Andrew Bolt's summary of Salby's results:

Salby’s argument is that the usual evidence given for the rise in CO2 being man-made is mistaken. It’s usually taken to be the fact that as carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increase, the 1 per cent of CO2 that’s the heavier carbon isotope ratio c13 declines in proportion. Plants, which produced our coal and oil, prefer the lighter c12 isotope. Hence, it must be our gasses that caused this relative decline.
But that conclusion holds true only if there are no other sources of c12 increases which are not human caused. Salby says there are – the huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions. He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa – which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages.

Wow.

Wohohow!

Yippiyayayayay!

Wobedobedoboo!

If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science. And I see no reason why it shouldn't hold up. It is sufficiently important that we should start talking about these issues. We can certainly do that without any graphs and other data. That just makes the discussion so much more open-minded and skeptical!

In the unlikely event that Salby turns out to be wrong, I can always write a post about that. If I can find the time.

Here are a couple of points we can discuss:

  • Is it temperature that is driving CO2, and not the other way around?
  • Does this mean that human CO2 emissions are insignificant? That they neither influence the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere (or elsewhere) nor the temperature?
  • Will the Team ever admit that they faked the hockey stick? Will there ever be reconciliation between skeptics and fraudsters? How long time should Michael Mann from Penn State serve in the State Pen?
  • Why is Al Gore buying seaside real estate?


Here is some of my favorite data. As can be seen from this graph, CO2 and temperature are uncorrelated, and hence CO2 cannot drive temperature. This is an argument we skeptics always have made, and now we have been vindicated.



This graph on the other hand shows how well temperature and CO2 correlate. This is evidence that temperature is driving CO2.


Of course, the alarmists will try everything to wreck Salby's argument. For your benefit, this is how they can be countered. Think of the atmosphere as a bank account, and carbon dioxide as money.

The alarmist says: we know that human activities emit carbon dioxide. Yes, even more carbon dioxide than the increase in the atmosphere.

We answer: There are many people who deposit and withdraw money from the account. If the balance of the account goes up, how could be possibly tell that is was because a certain person made a deposit? Especially if we don't know how much each person deposits and withdraws? It is completely impossible. Same thing about carbon dioxide. There are many processes that add to or remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

But, says the alarmist, where does the human carbon dioxide go? Does it just disappear?

We reply: Haven't you heard about taxes? Money disappearing nobody knows whereto? It is the same thing with carbon dioxide.

But, argues the alarmist: Where does the added carbon in the atmosphere come from then? It is also increasing in the oceans and the biosphere.

We reply: Economic growth. Capitalism and free markets generate more money. Same thing with carbon dioxide.

But, grovels the alarmist, if a temperature increase of less than one degree C increases CO2 from 280 to 380 ppm, then the CO2 concentration during ice ages (around 6 degrees colder than now) must have been negative. That is impossible!

We reply: there is noting strange about negative numbers. Have you ever heard about debts? The kind of thing that your reckless liberal over-spending policies are causing all the time? Same thing with carbon dioxide. During the ice ages, there was a carbon dioxide debt. That's why there were not trees growing on the ice. Trees need carbon dioxide.

That should make the alarmists shut up, one can hope. Unfortunately, they don't really understand economy, so they may not get it after all.

Sunday, 7 August 2011

Arctic Sea Ice Recovery

The Arctic sea ice extent is now above what it was in the corresponding period in 2007 according to NSIDC. This means 4 years of a steady Arctic sea ice increase! The doomsayers are proven wrong as always. No need to worry about the polar bears!
The blue line shows the Arctic sea ice extent for 2011 (May-August) and the dashed line for 2007. By comparing 2011 to the year with the lowest extent (2007), NSIDC tries to give the impression that this year is very low as well. The black line is the average for 19971979-2000, and the grey area is two standard deviations. They have been included to give the impression that there is some kind of "normal" Arctic sea ice extent, and that 2011 and 2007 is well below that extent. What NSIDC is doing is called cherry picking: they pick the data that support their thesis and discard the rest. Being an experienced data analysician, I can easily see through such ruses. 

NSIDC get their money from federal agencies, and of course they want to keep the cash flowing even when the ice is not melting.

Wood mashes Mashey

In Chronicle of Higher Education, NAS president Peter Wood (picture) delivers a devastating critique of the warmistas in two articles: Bottling Up Global Warming Skepticism and Climate Thuggery. NAS, you may think, National Academy of Sciences, isn't that those people who white washed the hockey stick? Do not fear, this is a different NAS with far more credibility: National Association of Scholars.

In the first piece, NAS president Wood writes about the american showman P T Barnum, who got rich from freak shows and a museum with mermaids and other fake curiosities. That constitutes a truly devastating critique of the state of climate science; a merciless blow that the peddlers of climate apocalypse never will recover from. Once you get compared to P T Barnum (or Hitler) it is game over!

One alarmist who has much in common with P T Barnum is John Mashey. I wrote about Mashey's shameless attacks against Edward Wegman, the worlds best statistician, last autumn. In his piece, Woods writes:
But let’s put aside these vacant thoughts and turn to some serious news. Science reports that retired computer scientist Dr. John Mashey is attempting to patch the tattered reputation of “hide the decline” Michael Mann, the climate scientist whose famous “hockey stick” chart shows exponentially increasing global temperatures in the near term. Mashey has been, as he puts it, “trying to take the offense” against global warming skeptics by flyspecking their publications. “You hope they make a mistake,” he says, and when they do, he pounces with demands that journals retract whole articles. Some journals indeed have. As Science puts it, “His critics say Mashey is more interested in destroying his foes than in debating the issues.” Professor Mann is extolling his efforts at “exploring the underbelly of climate denial.”
Trying to find errors is your opponents' publication: what kind of low life would sink so low? Mashey has shown his true colors (green, red, brown), and the innocent Wegman is now under investigation for plagiarism. We skeptics would never do anything so mean. We are honorable people! Remember Climategate!

In the second piece, NAS president Wood documents how the warmists try to silence dissenting voices and cover up scientific facts that undermine their position:
Mann himself has deployed nuisance lawsuits in a similar fashion. He has sued Tim Ball—a Canadian global-warming skeptic, an environmentalist, and former professor of geography—for libel for writing that Mann “should be in the State Pen, not Penn State,” for his role in Climategate. Mann also threatened a lawsuit against Minnesotans for Global Warming for a satiric YouTube video titled “Hide the Decline.”
Indeed. Instead of engaging in a scientific debate with Ball and Minnesotans for Global Warming, Mann just goes ahead and sues them. But that is because he cannot counter their rock-solid arguments. By thus attacking his strongest critics, Mann tries to make everybody else afraid and thereby he prevents an open and informed scientific debate. "Makin' up data the old hard way. Fudgin' the numbers day by day. Hiding the snow and the cold and a downward line. Hide the decline (hide the decline)." That video was so funny! And scientific! "Oh Climategate I think you have sealed your fate. I hope you do a lot of time, cuz what you did was such a crime."


Mashey and co-thug Coleman try to retaliate in a piece of their own in CHI:
Although we see this elsewhere and ignore it, we were surprised to find articles and comments by Wood in CHE that could be considered libelous. We value the academy for open discussion and seeking truth. We both take academic misconduct seriously and have filed formal, detailed misconduct complaints. Wood’s use of phrases like “tattered reputation,” “statistical trickery and suppression of discrepant data,” “Barnum-esque hokum,” and “academic dishonesty” are not things that credible people publish without showing expertise and evidence. As Christopher Hitchens has so accurately stated: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Much of what Wood writes falls under the category of assertion without evidence, counter to the principles of scholarly discourse.
This is utterly ridiculous and without any merit what-so-ever! Why would NAS president Wood want to libel anybody? He is not taking sides in the climate debate. He describes his honorable intentions as follows:
Is anthropogenic global warming (AGW) a valid scientific theory? Is it well supported by the empirical data or is it mostly an artifact of computer modeling? I don’t have answers to these questions. I stand, rather, on the side of those who favor rigorous scientific inquiry, transparency, and openness. I am not a climate scientist, but neither do I cede the whole matter of answering such questions to the designated experts. Good science doesn’t limit itself to the views of narrow-cast specialists. Valid observations, corrective criticism, competing hypotheses, and rigorous testing can and often do arise from other sources.

Saturday, 23 July 2011

Manufactured indices and other units


In the video above, Rush Limbaugh critisizes the use of the so-called "heat index", which inflates temperatures by adding the imagined effect of relative humidity. If the relative humidity is high, the heat index is higher than the actual temperature, and if it is low then is lower than the actual temperature. Rush says:
They’re playing games with us on this heat wave, again. Even Drudge, drudge getting sucked in here. Gonna be a 116 in Washington. No, it’s not. It’s going to be a 100, maybe 99. The heat index, manufactured by the government, they tell you what it feels like when you add the humidity in there.
By using the heat index, the government tries to make us believe that it is warmer than it actually is. The heat index is essentially a form of psy op, indendent to scare people so they will not oppose the new world governance.

But the heat index is not the only unit manufactured by the government. There are also these:

  • Temperature anomaly - the word anomaly is chosen by the government to make us think that there is something wrong, even unnatural, with the temperature changing, but the temperature has always changed. What would be an anomaly is the temperature being static, never changing. 
  • Degrees Kalvin - this you get by adding 273.15 to the temperature in degrees Celsius. For instance, 293 degrees Kalvin sounds incredibly hot, but in reality it is only 20 degrees Celsius. One understands that "Kalvin" is nonsense when one observes that its name is derived from a comic book character!
  • Arctic sea ice volume - as we all know, water expands when it freezes. That's why ice floats. By calculating the ice volume, and not the corresponding water volume which would be the correct thing to do, the amount of ice is exaggerated. And this means that any decline in Artic sea ice volume also is exaggerated! Horror, horror, the Arctic is melting! Well, acutally it is not.
  • Parts per million - for measuring the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. The fraction of CO2 is currently 0.000391, which is a very small number. However, by using parts per million, one can make it appear to be much much bigger: 391 parts per million. 391 is a large number, and when you then read "million", it appears even larger. "Million" is usually associated with large quantities.
  • Permille - this is not strictly related to the climate, but to another issue where the government wants to interfere in our lives: alcohol and driving. If you, purely hypothetically, have lets say 4 permille alcohol in your blood when driving home after enjoying a couple of beers in the local gasthaus, what that really means is that the fraction of alcohol is a measly 0.004. Yes, that's right: there are three zeroes in front of that 4. Of course, the police will not listen to that when one tried to explain it to them. Bloody Gestapo! And they don't like being called Gestapo, I can tell you! What the heck is the problem with calling them Gestapo? It actually means "Secret State Police". Now, they sure are police, and they belong to the state. That is 2 out of 3. Ok, they may not be so secret, but that's nothing to get upset about, is it? And what if I was holding up an image of a Swastika while saying it? Does that somehow imply that I was calling those officers Nazis? What poppycock! No, they are just trying to suppress my freedom!

Tuesday, 19 July 2011

Willie Soon - no burden for tax payers

Greenpeace has produced a report about the esteemed climate scientist Willie Soon. Apparently, Soon has received money from ExxonMobil, the Southern Company, Mobil, Texaco, the American Petroleum Institute and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. He is also associated with the Heartland Institute, the George C Marshall Institute, the Fraser Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, The Center for Science and Public Policy and the Science and Public Policy Institute. Oh, I'm sooo shocked. Not.

This time, the Greenpeace hippie-fascists have really shot themselves in their sandal-wearing feet. Who, besides a Nazi-hippie, would be stupid enough to think that all these corporations and institutes would give all this money to somebody who was incompetent? No, they fund only the very best. Successful corporations owe their success to being the best: they have the best managers, recruit the best people and make the best products. Did you really think that companies like Coca Cola, McDonald's and Microsoft would be so successful if they produced crap? And of course, they pay the best researchers, and that's Willie Soon, world leading expert on climate non-change and a number of other environmental issues such as the non-toxicity of mercury and the flourishing of polar bear populations. He has 23 papers in the Popular Technology list of "900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm".

It's only second-rate scientists like Hansen, Mann and Jones that need to crawl in the dust in front of Politruks and bureaucrats to be allowed to feed at the trough of tax-payers money. The public is largely unaware of how public research funding is done today, but I think it is time they heard the truth. The full, unvarnished and unpolished truth, no matter how distasteful it is. I have seen with my own eyes how one is supposed to write research proposals, and I can read between the lines. I'm not making things up: I'm only making inferences.
When you want to get money from a funding agency, you need to write a proposal and submit it to the agency. For instance, lets assume that I would like to get tax-payers money to investigate the medical effects of drinking beer. First, I would have to write what my objectives are: "I want to prove that beer is bad for your health." Next, you have to show that nobody else has done the same thing before: "Although a number of studies has investigate some of the health effects of beer, nobody has yet shown that it can hurt your brain." Then you need to explain your method: "I will let monkeys drink large quantities of beer and then let put them in a room with a typewriter - if they don't write Shakespeare's collected works, then it proves that beer makes you stupid." As I said before, I'm not making this stuff up: this is how you write a research proposal.

Finally, there is the most important part. The "Impact" section, where you are supposed to write how the politicians and bureaucrats can benefit from your research. Here, you can for instance write: "When I have proved that beer is bad for the brain, you can make a tax on beer" or "you can regulate the brewery industry" or "`you can forbid people to drink beer" or such things. What you write here will determine whether you get your funding or not. If you can e.g. justify taxes, you are on. On the other hand, if you promote freedom, liberty and free enterprise, you have as much a chance as a snowball in hell, inside a burning oven. Of course, the scientists know this, and they are all either just after the money so they can fill their cofferswith tax-payers' hard-earned money and go to expensive and luxurious conferences or they are communists, so they play along. Well, most of them do, but a few people with integrity such as Willie Soon refuses. Instead, Soon and those like him get money from independent sources, with no strings attached. They don't sell their souls to the politicians. These are the only scientists you should ever trust.

Do you think Galileo got funding from the pope to perform his seminal research on the spherical shape of the Earth? No, he was funded by private means, just like Willie Soon.

Monday, 4 April 2011

Morano mashes Muller


Professor Richard Muller from Berkeley has been a brave and outspoken YouTube critic of the machinations of the hockey stick team. He is also the leader of the BEST project, funded by the Koch brothers (great patrons of free and pure science), which was going to set the temperature record straight. For that reason, he was invited to a congressional hearing along with among others world-leading forecaster J. Scott Armstrong. All right-thinking persons expected Dr Muller to show that the alleged global warming was an artifact of barbeques, tarmac, and data massage and cooking and other perversions.

However, Dr Muller betrayed us. He was not the honest and upstanding no-nonsense scientist we thought him to be but just another of the Team's toadies! He said: "We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups." Ow, my eyes hurt when I read those words.

But Dr Muller will have to pay the price for his obstructions of free and pure science. Marc Morano is bringing out the whip and is mashing Muller on his website Climate Depot (see picture above, click to enlarge). Yes, Morano is practically carpet bombing Muller with critical links and images with Muller holding a snake (you get it - Muller, snake?).
Cheating scientists beware, Morano is out to get you!

Update: Climate Depot quotes us. This is good for traffic - for both sites!

Friday, 25 March 2011

Quote of the Millennium

Over at Whats Up With Watts, I found the following wonderful quote from Australian arch alarmist Tim Flannery:
Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.
Reading that quote, any sane person has to ask himself: if it takes up to a thousand years for Earth to cool after our CO2 emissions, what is the bloody point of cutting those emissions? It simply doesn't make sense! It just has to be a scam! As Anthony Watts comments:
Crikey! So much for the “think of the grandchildren” argument used by Dr. James Hansen.

This reminds me of an encounter I had with another Gaia-worshipping tree hugger a while ago. I and some friends had gone to an ancient oak forest near where I live, bringing our chain saws. We wanted to make a really big  bonfire to celebrate Man's Dominion Over Nature Day, and we thought that those oaks would make the perfect fuel. However, after we had felled a few of the oaks, a man came up to us and called out:
"What are you doing? Why are you felling those oaks?"
I responded: "We want to make a bonfire."
He said: "But this forest is protected. You cannot do that!"
I responded: "I don't think that we are doing any harm to those oaks. It is only natural for them to burn."
He cried: "Are you mad? It will take many centuries for oaks like those to grow back again!"
Whereupon I replied: "Centuries? Are you telling me that even if I and my merry friends stopped cutting down oaks right now, it would take many centuries for the forest to grow back?"
He said: "Yes! We would have to plant new oaks to replace those lost, and they grow very slowly."
So I laughed at the poor imbecille: "Why should I stop cutting down these oaks if it doesn't make a difference until after many centuries?"
Whereupon I and my friends continued to fell oaks.

The moron who had harassed us with his idiotic nature-worshipping ramblings apparently felt so humiliated by the crushing intellectual defeat he had suffered that he had phoned the police as a petty act of vengeance, but that's a different story.

Nos ardere quercus

Update: also see Bishops Hill and Steven Goddard. And here is a cartoon by Josh:
And what the heck has felling trees got to do with diminishing forests?

Wednesday, 23 March 2011

Earth Hour Terror

On Saturday it is time for the annual Earth Hour, an event where we are supposed to "take a stand against climate change." We are all supposed to turn off our lights for one hour, starting from 8:30 PM.

So what is the purpose with Earth Hour? How is turning off our lights going to stop climate change? The bed-wetting climate alarmists believe that carbon dioxide warms Earth so it must have something do do with reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Have the fools never taken a close look at a light bulb? This is what it looks like:
It has a hermetically sealed cover of glass! Whatever amounts of carbon dioxide is generated by the light bulb stays in the light bulb. It is not going to float out into the atmosphere. Just when you thought that this climate change hysteria couldn't get any sillier this comes along.

But wait a moment. Maybe Earth Hour isn't about turing off your lights to stop climate change. Maybe there is something else behind. Something more sinister...

What happens when you turn off the light? Darkness! And what happens to people in darkness? They are scared. Do you remember when you were a child and went to sleep with your lamp left on? And your parents sneaked inside and turned it off? And you suddenly woke up in the middle of the night and found yourself surrounded by complete and utter darkness? How did you feel? What did you think? You were scared, and you thought about all the horrors that could be hiding in that impenetrable darkness. You thought about monsters and boogeymen and squirrels, and other nameless and unspeakable horrors. And you screamed in terror and you wet your bed, and your parents came and yelled at you because you had wet your bed again. And it took a long time until your heart stopped pounding like mad and you felt safe again.

Yes, that is what darkness represents to humankind. It is the primeval fear and terror. And that is what those behind Earth Hour want you to feel. They want you to feel like when you wake up in the middle of the night and your parents or your wife (now ex) have turned off the light. Because they know that scared people are easier to manipulate and control. Earth Hour is all about psychological warfare.

Don't let them scare you and control your mind: say No to Earth Hour!

Luceat lux vestra

Sunday, 20 March 2011

Ken Ring on CO2

New Zealand space scientist and long-range weather and earth quake forecaster Ken Ring explains that carbon dioxide molecules are heavier than air molecules and fall to the ground.

Thursday, 17 March 2011

Rush Limbaugh on Japanese disaster

Rush Limbaugh comments on the irony of a natural disaster striking the eco-friendly recycling Japanese.

Friday, 11 March 2011

On Hiding the Decline and Rebuilding Trust part III (of LXXV): To Serve Mann

By cartoonist Josh, from WUWT
The final nail in the coffin of global warming is nigh! The ultimate truth of the Climategate scandal is revealed. The downfall and disgrace of the Team is finally coming. Teamster Eugene Wahl has spilled the beans.

Mosher at WUWT reports
“Sources confirm that a federal inspector has questioned Eugene Wahl and Wahl has confirmed that Mann asked him to delete emails. Wahl has also informed the inspector that he did delete emails as the result of this request.”
We thank this courageous source, probably the brave Senator Inhofe's office.

“Climategate’s Michael Mann Caught!? Justice to be Served?! Climategate’s Eugene Wahl ‘has confirmed that Mann asked him to delete emails… Wahl did delete emails as the result of this request’”

So the case is clear: Teamster Mann ordered Teamster Wahl to delete emails. Mann was the bloated spider in the center of the web of deceit and deception spun by the Team; the ayatollah behind the Team's reign of climate terror. The emails in questions are reported to be concerned with a clandestine exchange Wahl had with Teamster Briffa, when Briffa asked for Wahl's assistance in corrupting the corrupt IPCC procedures in order to respond to a hockey-stick-related comment from an IPCC reviewer (who actually was our hero Steve McIntyre). The corruption is claimed to consist of Wahl, secretly and most certainly in violation of the corrupted IPCC rules, sending Briffa a paper he co-authored with Teamster Ammann which had not been published at that time, but that is probably just the tip of the non-melting ice-berg. We can only speculate what tricks, decline-hiding, spaghetti cooking and data massaging was going on in that corrupt paper. It is now clear that nothing in the IPCC reports can be trusted. The public is rapidly losing confidence in climate science due to this sordid affair, and justifiably so. This would never have happened of the IPCC had followed my advise to video record all activities of IPCC authors; to log all their computer activities; to record all their communications and conversations; monitor their physiological parameters (temperature, blood pressure, EKG, EEG etc); to regularly test their DNA for mutations; and to make all this information publicly available in real time on the web. I demand that the IPCC complies with my suggestions for the writing of the next report, due in 2035.

The momentous revelation of Mann's involvement has resulted in a grotesque and malicious ad hominem smearing campaign by notorious alarmists like Joe Romm. While it in some sense may be technically correct that Wahl actually didn't say that Mann asked him to delete the emails but only forwarded an email from Briffa, that is immaterial to the case at hand. We know for certain that Mann was master minding a conspiracy to corrupt the IPCC reports. Joe Romm is only trying to attack the messenger in order to divert the attention from Mann's transgressions, in particular not telling the Penn State investigation about the forwarding. Read for yourself if you can stomach it:

A bunch of widely discredited pro-pollution scientist-smearers — Anthony “shout them down” Watts, Chris Horner, Marc Morano, Steve McIntyre — have spun a partially leaked transcript from the IG investigation into a bunch of libelous falsehoods. Sen. Inhofe has now reposted those stories on the Senate EPW website (here). The most plausible theory is that Inhofe himself leaked the information to right-wing fabricators so he could quote those stories (see below).

Outrageous! Although one could argue that Mann didn't explicitly ask Wahl to delete the emails, but instead forwarded an email from Briffa to Wahl, it is clear that Mosher (on Watt's blog), Horner and Morano where justified to report that Mann did ask Wahl to delete the emails. There is nothing libelous in that! On the contrary, Mosher, Horner and Morano are brave and truth-loving and honorable men (who by the way have since made corrections, sort of)! And so is the highly esteemed Senator Inhofe, that beacon of sanity and integrity in the US Senate. Why is Romm so obsessive about whether the information came from Inhofe? The important thing is that the information is true, or at least was in principle (although perhaps not entirely in practice) true at the time it was deliberated. And if some things happened to be "leaked" and some things were not perfectly true - so what? We shouldn't ask for impossible standards of integrity and perfection. Romm and his fellow alarmists must really be getting desperate, but they know that their house of cards is falling down! Therefore, they are burning all their bridges. We will never get any reconciliation and we will never rebuild the public's trust in climate science if people like Romm have their way! Woe, woe, woe! This misery can only be remedied with even more blogging about the hockey-stick and Climate gate.

Yet, it is comforting to see that the public is unimpressed by Romm's fit of rage. Romm's post only got 50 comments, whereas Mosher's WUWT post has received 490 comments when I'm writing this, so it is quite clear who to trust on this matter. I conclude by citing some of the insightful comments to Mosher's piece:
Tastes like pork I am told.
-
The house of cards will soon be coming down.
Kudos to all those stalwart individuals that have doggedly pursued this noble cause. I have never made a “charitable” donation that made more sense and gave better results than supporting this and other climate realist organizations.
Well done!
-
If Wahl admitted this… wait my brain is trying to understand why there are no criminal proceedings going on right now.
-
Nothing will happen. Orthodox Party members never get in trouble. Only heretics and truth-tellers get in trouble.
-
Penn State (and Penn State alumni) better realize that they are NOT too big for this cover-up to severely damage their reputation.

Sunday, 6 March 2011

On Hiding the Decline and Rebuilding Trust part II (of LXXV): Where Is Gavin Hiding?

It is more than a week since I posted "On Hiding the Decline and Rebuilding Trust part I (of LXXV)" in an effort to build bridges by addressing the single most important issue in climate science: the hockey stick graph on the 1999 WMO broschure cover. As all my readers can observe, one person was suspiciously absent from the ensuing discussion: Gavin Smith. It is very disappointing: Gavin's absence is definitely not helping to restore the public's trust in science, and it is in no way bringing us any closer to a reconciliation between alarmists and skeptics. It is rather more like a kick on the shin from a petulant child!

Of course Gavin didn't fare well at Climate Etc when he tried to defend the indefensible. And he surely knows that he will have an even harder time at my blog. He knows that no matter what he says we will not believe him. He knows that he will be shouted down and then FOIed down if he dares to show his face here! And he knows that we would advertise his utter defeat and humiliation on sites such as WUWT (and boost our hit count)! So it is not surprise that childish Gavin doesn't dare to discuss with us grown-ups!

Get sound effects & royalty free music at AudioMicro.
Instead, Gavin prefers to hide at the Team's notorious blog, RealClimate, where critical comments are systematically censored and the authors of the comments can be traced and put on the secret UN black list; where the blog owners can edit comments at will and write fake comments with fake pseudonyms pretending to support them or pretending to be silly and clueless "skeptics"; and where a horde of fanatical trolls launch massive ad-hominem and personal attacks towards anybody daring to question any aspect of their climate pseudo-dogma. It is upsetting that Gavin and his accomplices are spending tax-payers' money to work on their ivory-tower blog, which by the way very few people ever read or comment. RealClimate is also rumored to receive financial support from George Soros, Maurice Strong, the Rome Club, the Bilderberg Group, the Vatican, the Freemasons, the Rosicrucians, third-world kleptocrats, the Russian Mafia, and Margaret Thatcher.

No wonder people rather visit uncensored real science blogs like this one, where we address the real questions! It is here that Joe Six-Pack and his friends come for accurate and reliable information about climate science, and for informed and constructive discussions and balanced and fair commentary. Indeed, Gavin's silence proves once more what an important player in the blogsciencophere "The Climate Scum" has become. We are now so big and well respected that the Team is scared witless! This is the final nail in the coffin of the global warming swindle!

Persquere solum pullum

Monday, 28 February 2011

Alarmistic blogging climate scientist: 10 C climate sensitivity possible

A hyper-alarmistic blogging climate scientist has claimed that a climate sensitivity of 10 C is possible! This is outrageous - this is twice of what even the insane IPCC bureaucrats consider plausible in their fevered imaginations! How are we ever to rebuild the public's trust in climate science in the light of such hysterical scare-mongering? How are we ever going to be reconciliated with the watermelons and bed-wetting chicken littles if they go on like this? Argh!
Personally, I'm sure that climate sensitivity is between -1 and 1 C, with a confidence of 10% (because we don't really know anything about how the climate works). So I'm feeling quite safe, except for the coming ice age but that would be natural!

Sunday, 27 February 2011

On Hiding the Decline and Rebuilding Trust part I (of LXXV)

In 1999, the World Meteorological Organization printed a brochure that would have a devastating effect on our society. The brochure featured on its cover the infamous Hockey Stick – a graph with a temperature reconstruction purporting to demonstrate that the alleged recent temperature increase was unprecedented. Almost everybody believed in this graph, and thought it to be the final and ultimate truth. So this graph became the cornerstone in the construction of an unprecedented global warming narrative that came to completely dominate the scientific, political and economical discourse for the next decade. The importance of this WMO cover graph cannot be underestimated. The whole global warming edifice rested on it being correct - this was the single piece of evidence that the warmists had.
But then something happened in 2009. When the Climategate emails were liberated from University of East Anglia, the whole world could see that a trick had been used to hide the decline! The graph did not only contain proxies: the so-called scientist had added actual temperature measurements to make it appear that the temperature had increased the last couple of decades! The proxy data, which were most deceitfully truncated, showed that temperatures were going down! This problem, called the divergence problem, had been carefully hidden in scientific journals where nobody would ever find out about it.
This deceit, yes I do not hesitate to call it a fraud, committed by the notorious Team, a group of activists that are high priests of the IPCC, has fundamentally shaken confidence in climate science. If the Team could remove proxy temperature data that they thought were “bad” from a graph in a WMO brochure and add thermometer data instead, what else could they do? Was there anything in climate science one could trust? The answer was obviously “No”. The public’s trust in climate science was sadly obliterated. Indeed, this scandalous event has led to widespread erosion in people’s trust in science and scientists. Many people don’t believe in physics anymore, and might stop using computers, cellular phones, televisions, microwave ovens and other high technological devices that are based on modern physics. Many people might stop going to medical doctors and start going to witch doctors instead. Many people might start thinking that Earth is flat. Democracy and the modern industrial society are undermined, and feudalism is making a comeback. We are rapidly moving towards a new dark age because of this shameless abuse of a graph in a WMO brochure.
Therefore, it is paramount that we try to rebuild trust in science again. For that purpose, I have started a series of blog posts that will be dedicated to discussing and analyzing the WMO graph and exposing the culprits and bring them to justice and make them take responsibility for this heinous crime. Only by openly and honestly discussing this outrageous event and revealing the truth can the public’s trust in climate science and science in general be at least partially restored.
In this first trust-building post, I want to discuss what adjectives best describe the nefarious and dishonest activities of the Team. After 1000 comments, I will write a second post, and so on. I expect to write about 75 posts on this important subject, until the public’s trust in science, now shattered by the duplicity of the Team in producing that WMO graph from 1999, has been rebuilt. I’m doing this because I believe in science! Nothing, I repeat nothing, can be more important than discussing “hide the decline”. Indeed, I would as far as stating that nothing else matters until this issue has gotten a satisfactory resolution. Until then, all climate science is meaningless and should be ignored.
Ony then can we go on to discuss other importan questions, such as the effect of underwater volcanoes and the iron core sun.

Saturday, 26 February 2011

Eco-Nazis - yes that is what they are!

Eco-Nazi tree huggers in action! This tree swastika in Brandenburg was probaly planted in the 1930's. Proof that "green is brown!"
There is an excellent article in American Thinker by the renowned historian (or maybe journalist) Mark Musser that reveals The Nazi Origins of Apocalyptic Global Warming Theory! Musser reveals that one of the pioneers in catastrophic global warming theory was Guenther Schwab(1902-2006), an Austrian Nazi just like Hitler! Schwab wrote a fictional novel in 1958 with the title "Dance with the Devil" where he warned about imagined environmental disasters such as global warming. This was almost 50 years before Al’Gore invented the Apocalyptic Global Warming Theory in his movie “An Inconvenient Truth”. As I see it, Al’Gore simply copied the Nazi-ideas of Nazi-Schwab.
James Delingpole, who has never been afraid to call the eco-fascists by their right name, comments:
You’ll note from that “whoulda thunk?” that I am not altogether surprised by the Nazi connections with the green movement and AGW theory. That’s because, during my research for Watermelons, I discovered how intimately they were bound. The Nazi obsession with “Blut und Boden” (”Blood and Soil”) and the quest for Lebensraum did not die with Hitler in his bunker in 1945: in only slightly changed form they continue to permeate green ideology, in everything from the worship of all things “organic” and the rejection of GM, artificial fertilisers, chemicals (and all the other hideous methods by which we keep the Third World from starving) to the fixation held by so many environmentalists from the Prince of Wales to John Holdren that there simply isn’t enough space on the earth to house and feed us all and that something must be done about population. (The only real difference between the Thirties Nazis and their modern eco counterparts is that they were a bit more honest as to exactly HOW they were going to deal with this population “problem”).
Precisely! Let us also remember that Hitler was a vegetarian, just like many of the present-day environmentalists. And he had dogs. Indeed, the Nazis were very fond of animals.
Hence, people that are concerned about consequences of using pesticides and fertilizers and about over-population, and people that like nature and animals and eat vegetables, are all Nazi!

If it walks like a Nazi and if it quacks like a Nazi then it is a Nazi – that’s my motto!

Obviously, this motto should be used with care. There are some things which the Nazis liked or did which do not implicate Nazism.

For instance beer! On November 8 , 1923, Hitler tried to stage a Nazi revolt in a Munich beer hall. The revolt failed, and Hitler was sent to prison where he went on to write “Mein Kampf”. Of course, it would be ridiculous to claim that people who drink beer are Nazis just because the Nazi’s liked beer.

Hitler built the Autobahn, a superior system of freeways that are still being used today. He also designed the Volkswagen, a car that every German should be able to afford. Yet, it would be ridiculous to claim that people that drive cars on freeways are Nazis!

The Nazis were very fond of weapons – hardly a surprise as they started World War II. But one can admire the beauty of weapons (personally, I like to collect Lugers) without being a Nazi. One can spend the weekends at the firing range without being a Nazi.

Finally, there is the contentious issue of torture. Yes, the Nazis used torture against their prisoners, and there are situations were torture is unethical – I’m the first to admit that. But sometimes torture can be justified in the defense of democracy. For instance, suppose that a group of Nazi terrorists had hidden an atomic bomb somewhere in New York, and that torturing them was the only way to get information about where the bomb was and the code needed to disarm it. In that case, torture would not be the Nazi thing to do, but on the contrary it would be an anti-Nazi act as it would stop the evil Nazi plans. In addition, the situation today is different from the situation in Nazi-Germany - in the latter, there were no Islamic terrorists!

Remember: green is brown!