tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25712246767825480452024-02-25T23:03:13.205-08:00The Climate ScumBloviations from a blog baron about the climate scum like Al Gore who try to pull a scam on mankind!
My motto: <i>Infinitus est numerus stultorum</i>Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.comBlogger102125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-31361061929286148392012-09-21T23:54:00.001-07:002012-09-21T23:54:21.246-07:00Stunning recovery of Arctic Sea Ice<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9eR3DipUFOBTbdx5zciGBcmL8nzxxK7pq7ZzaBbz1yDVDN4e7WdyDdo_p7GrfJ4q5DG5hdKHwxn6Ao7udmNysf7sxwZonkNHnWGeDs1ypkzO-6XV_hinbEciwH1LKHTySnDhED97XTJE/s1600/N_stddev_timeseries+120922+recovery.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9eR3DipUFOBTbdx5zciGBcmL8nzxxK7pq7ZzaBbz1yDVDN4e7WdyDdo_p7GrfJ4q5DG5hdKHwxn6Ao7udmNysf7sxwZonkNHnWGeDs1ypkzO-6XV_hinbEciwH1LKHTySnDhED97XTJE/s400/N_stddev_timeseries+120922+recovery.png" width="256" /></a></div>
After a temporary decline in mid September that caused a lot of clamor and lamentations among the alarmists, the <a href="http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/">Arctic Sea ice</a> has now made a stunning recovery to the levels it had at the beginning of September. This is what happens every September: the Arctic Sea ice melts a bit, and then it refreezes again. It is a perfectly natural phenomenon, although not yet fully understood, and it gives no reason for alarm. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with any <i>Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming</i>. Just look at the green dashed curve which represents the Arctic Sea ice during 2007: we see exactly the same pattern. The recovery is even a bit earlier this year. So much for the doom-sayers' predictions of imminent doom!Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-24356318613359564862012-09-11T00:18:00.002-07:002012-09-11T00:19:13.479-07:00I Was Right About the Arctic Ice!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyHQ32tK4defWuK-VZNKJ8NUSDs5cPf5SR-q6eJQLmJKONI0-J4AhMjLq_6DeGMI4czSc6y7VIBbP4iOv5P74ah2g-ZEb3GZK_uiYFxwnmoA81k2HR8K3_EGzN89V4tA3AZWU5kox3lDY/s1600/N_stddev_timeseries+120911.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyHQ32tK4defWuK-VZNKJ8NUSDs5cPf5SR-q6eJQLmJKONI0-J4AhMjLq_6DeGMI4czSc6y7VIBbP4iOv5P74ah2g-ZEb3GZK_uiYFxwnmoA81k2HR8K3_EGzN89V4tA3AZWU5kox3lDY/s400/N_stddev_timeseries+120911.png" width="400" /></a></div>
My <a href="http://theclimatescum.blogspot.se/2012/09/arctic-sea-ice-recovery.html">prediction</a> that the conditions in the Arctic Sea would return to normal after the humongous but perfectly natural storm last month was spot on! As can be seen in the chart above, the Arctic sea ice is not melting any more, and all we have to do now is to watch the swift recovery as it commences.<br />
<br />
I was right, and I didn't need any fancy "computer models" or any fancy "satellites" or "instruments" or "tree-rings" or "PhDs": I just used my common sense and my diploma from the school of life, and Photoshop, to get it right. Unlike those taxpayermoney-grabbing ivory tower "PhDs" from NASA and NSIDC and whatever they call themselves.<br />
<br />
A great triumph for Blog Science!Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-240477869791090062012-09-03T08:20:00.002-07:002012-09-03T08:23:56.144-07:00Arctic Sea Ice Recovery<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDxEuSjWDUJzd1m9pvMMjiqeVeZtjBfV09XA3rDmPZYbF2_JRA-vrIFzrJNd0Qejk-gzpbHHJ0oIH6YfwVueA_75AyAkn22uWVxSW8OjGfJcaA1oT3ZZXNIE82p5mmxSDGkGGio7W99oY/s1600/N_stddev_timeseries+120902+recovery.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDxEuSjWDUJzd1m9pvMMjiqeVeZtjBfV09XA3rDmPZYbF2_JRA-vrIFzrJNd0Qejk-gzpbHHJ0oIH6YfwVueA_75AyAkn22uWVxSW8OjGfJcaA1oT3ZZXNIE82p5mmxSDGkGGio7W99oY/s400/N_stddev_timeseries+120902+recovery.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Now that the Arctic storm in early August has abated, we can expect a quick recovery of the Arctic sea ice to normal conditions. I have indicated that in the figure above with a thick blue line. We can be sure that by mid September it will be above the 2007 line, so the sea ice minimum record from mid September 2007 will not be beaten. We are probably up for a new Little Ice Age in the next couple of years. It's all just natural cycles anyhow. One shouldn't believe anything from those IPCC climate models, which are just fancy computer games. That is why I do my predictions without any models what so ever. I only use observations and Photoshop.<br />
<br />
Here is a <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/28/josh-on-catastrophic-reporting/">hilarious cartoon</a> by Josh, about George Moonbat!<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/unprecedented_scr.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/unprecedented_scr.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
Moonbat could be funny, as a kind of standup comedian, but he isn’t because he´s trying to sell an idea that will exactly do what he says he´s trying to prevent: the downfall of the Western World. He’s a usefull idiot to a grim and dangerous redgreen agenda.Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-10790584858946535122012-08-29T10:32:00.000-07:002012-08-29T10:37:06.098-07:00Liar, Liar, Penguins on Fire!<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/flaming-hot-antarctic-penguin.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="369" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Combusting emperor penguin breathing fire on a Stevenson screen</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.weatherforschools.me.uk/images/WS_stevenson_screen.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="317" src="http://www.weatherforschools.me.uk/images/WS_stevenson_screen.jpg" width="215" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Antarctic Stevenson screen finding itself in a warmer climate due to<br />
penguin combustion. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
One of my esteemed colleagues, professor Watts, has recently suggested that the alleged warming on the Antarctic peninsula is <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/23/antarctic-peninsula-was-1-3c-warmer-than-today-11000-years-ago">an artifact due to the vicinity of meteorological stations to densely populated inhabited areas</a>. While I'm convinced that this can explain part of the alleged warming, I believe that there are other factors in play as well. Natural factors. Or to be more specific: penguins.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
A penguin's body consists of nearly 40% fat. Hence, a penguin is a very flammable creature, and it may incinerate at the merest exposure to fire or sparks (like fat Americans are known to do). Before there was human occupation on the Antarctic peninsula, penguins were rarely exposed to fire. However, now there are cigarette butts, discarded lighters, hot batteries, spark plugs, smouldering barbecue ashes and other sources of fire lying around everywhere, and hence the likelihood that a penguin catches fire has increased significantly. And a burning penguin can generate an enormous amount of heat. If the penguin then happens to be near to a meteorological station, then that station will record a dramatic increase in temperature. It is enough to have a few such incidents to obtain an artificial (or maybe I should say "Sphenisciformogene") but significant increase in recorded temperature on a small area like the Antarctic peninsula.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
I will not be able to post any more for the next couple of hours, because I have to write a game-changing scientific paper expounding my discovery and submit it to some scientific journal. Stay tuned: this is going to be really really big.</div>
Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-55384734577971560722012-05-17T10:48:00.000-07:002012-05-17T10:56:15.069-07:00Recommended ReadingI apologize for not being so active recently. I know how much this blog means to a lot of people, but I've had a bit of a hangover for the last couple of months.<br />
<br />
Anyhow, there are some other excellent writers out there. In particular, I recommend this defense of the rational scientific public discourse:<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://blog.heartland.org/2012/05/joe-basts-response-to-scholars-feeling-pressure-after-attacks-on-heartland/">Joe Bast’s Response to Scholars Feeling Pressure After Attacks on Heartland</a>.</b><br />
<br />
Joe Bast responds to critics after the - as I see it - rather<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder?intcmp=239"> innocent billboard campaign </a>showing that some leading murderous psychopats are also leading global warming alarmists.
Some choice quotes:
<br />
<blockquote>
Almost alone among think tanks, we focus on communicating with people who do not already agree with us. We rely on research and reason, not rhetoric and emotion, and still do.</blockquote>
...
<br />
<blockquote>
Finally, regarding the billboard, after 15 years of being the target of vicious ad hominem attacks, we decided to punch back instead of stand back. Our billboard was factual: The Unabomber was motivated by concern over man-made global warming to do the terrible crimes he committed. He still believes in global warming. We simply put his picture on a billboard, pointed out the “inconvenient truth,” and asked, “do you?”</blockquote>
...
<br />
<blockquote>
The mainstream media, which has tolerated and even promoted people who call global warming skeptics “Nazis” and “traitors’ and called for the death penalty for skeptics, now pretends to be “outraged” by this billboard. We took it down immediately and admitted that it was in poor taste and a mistake, but they continue to promote madmen on the other side of the issue including Michael Mann and Bill McKibben, and hypocritically pound on us for our “ethical lapse.” This is fake indignation, being staged by ideological extremists as part of the ongoing attack on us and our donors. It is not sincere, it is not accurate, and it is not ethical.</blockquote>
I also recommend the <a href="http://www.anxietycenter.com/">National Anxiety Center</a> blog by Alan Caruba, who by the way is <a href="http://heartland.org/alan-caruba">one of Heartland's experts</a>. Alan has some great pieces.<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://www.nationalanxietycenter.blogspot.se/2012/05/climate-nazis.html">Climate Nazis</a></b>
<br />
<blockquote>
What is it with the “warmists”, Al Gore and his clones who keep insisting the Earth is warming, that too much carbon dioxide (CO2) will be the death of us, and that we have to immediately stop burning “fossil fuels” if we are to save the planet? They are the most relentless liars on the face of the planet.</blockquote>
...
<br />
<blockquote>
Antihumanism has been around a long time. As Dr. Zubin points out, it has taken the form of “Darwinism, eugenics, German militarism, Nazism, xenophobia, the population control movement, environmentalism, technophobia, and most recently, the incredibly demented climatophobic movement, which seeks to justify mass human sacrifice for the purpose of weather control.”
Al Gore, James Hansen, and even President Obama’s science advisor, John Holden, are card-carrying members of this cult. In 1971 Holden co-authored “Global Ecology” with Paul Ehrlich, famed for his 1968 book, “The Population Bomb.” They wrote “when a population of organisms grows in a finite environment, sooner or later, it will encounter a resource limit. This phenomenon, described by ecologists as reaching the ‘carrying capacity’ of the environment, applies to bacteria on a culture dish, to fruit flies in a jar of agar, and to buffalo on a prairie. It must also apply to man on this finite planet.”
So you need to understand that you are no better than a fruit fly and you need to die in order to avoid depleting the planet’s supply of food and its energy resources.
God knows I would like to ignore or—better still—never have to hear from these climate Nazis, but that is not going to happen so long as The New York Times, the United Nations, and a host of others keep repeating their lethal lies.</blockquote>
<b><a href="http://www.nationalanxietycenter.blogspot.se/2012/05/playing-god-with-endangered-species.html">Playing God with "Endangered Species"</a></b>
<br />
<blockquote>
The answer is that the ESA was never about endangered species. It is a blunt instrument of environmental groups and those within the federal government to delay development anywhere in the nation. Almost 1,400 species on the government’s list are listed as “threatened” and none of them can be expected to avoid extinction, a natural process that cannot be impeded by human intervention.</blockquote>
...
<br />
<blockquote>
The only species that is endangered is the human species as environmental organizations continue to deny access and use of American land needed for growing crops, raising livestock, mining and drilling for energy resources, and building any new improvements including hospitals and other properties that would contribute to the welfare of the human inhabitants of planet Earth.
Not only is the ESA a huge bureaucratic failure, it is testimony to the arrogance and evil intent of the environmental movement to harm any form of economic activity and growth in America.
It is their way of playing God despite millions of years in which the extinction of species has been part of life on the planet. If dinosaurs still roamed the Earth, the ESA would declare them threatened and endangered.</blockquote>
<br />
<br />Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-80536929288501311692012-03-14T14:09:00.001-07:002012-03-14T14:25:58.279-07:00Et tu, Fred?<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://itwasjohnson.impiousdigest.com/Thepolicaldeath.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="227" src="http://itwasjohnson.impiousdigest.com/Thepolicaldeath.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Just like Brute betrayed Ceasar, so has Singer betrayed <br />climate skepticism.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<i>Gallia omnia est divisa in partes tres.</i> All of Gaul is divided into three parts.<br />
<br />
This quote by Julius Caesar <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name.html">begins a new essay by Fred Singer in the American Thinker</a>. Singer, a longstanding opponent to the AGW scam, writes that like Gaul, the global warming debate is dvided into three parts: the deniers, the skeptics and the warmists. The title of the essay is:<br />
<strong>"Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name"</strong><br />
<br />
The term "climate deniers", as you know, was invented by the econazi Sturmabteilung-Hitler-jugend global warming fascists in order to make sound scientific skepticism appear equivalent to holocaust denial.<br />
<br />
So who is Fred so ignobly calling "climate deniers"? He writes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: times new roman, times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Now let me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics -- i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO<sub>2</sub>, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman, times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Then there is another group of deniers who accept the existence of the greenhouse effect but argue about the cause and effect of the observed increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. One subgroup holds that CO<sub>2</sub> levels were much higher in the 19<sup>th</sup> century, so there really hasn't been a long-term increase from human activities. They even believe in a conspiracy to suppress these facts. Another subgroup accepts that CO<sub>2</sub> levels are increasing in the 20<sup>th</sup> century but claims that the source is release of dissolved CO<sub>2</sub> from the warming ocean. In other words, they argue that oceans warm first, which <em>then</em> causes the CO<sub>2</sub> increase. In fact, such a phenomenon is observed in the ice-core record, where sudden temperature increases precede increases in CO<sub>2</sub>. While this fact is a good argument against the story put forth by Al Gore, it does not apply to the 20<sup>th</sup> century: isotopic and other evidence destroys their case.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman, times;"><span style="font-size: small;">Another subgroup simply says that the concentration of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> is so small that they can't see how it could possibly change global temperature. But laboratory data show that CO<sub>2</sub> absorbs IR radiation very strongly. Another subgroup says that <em>natural</em> annual additions to atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> are many times greater than any human source; they ignore the natural sinks that have kept CO<sub>2</sub> reasonably constant before humans started burning fossil fuels. Finally, there are the claims that major volcanic eruptions produce the equivalent of many years of human emission from fossil-fuel burning. To which I reply: OK, but show me a step increase in measured atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> related to a volcanic eruption.</span></span></blockquote>
Yes, those that Singer so disgracefully labels "deniers" are those who are truly skeptical to AGW. These are the genuine skeptics. Singer calls himself a skeptic, but he really believe in central parts of the warmist dogma. <br />
<br />
Fred Singer, if you are going to combat witches, you cannot run around with a broom and a black cat. There is no such thing as selling only half your of soul to the devil. A bird cannot fly with only half a wing.<br />
<br />
If we concede that some of the things the eco-fascists claim are true, how is Joe Sixpack going to remember what is true and what is false? Joe Sixpack is only going to be confused.You are playing into the hands of the warmists, Fred. <br />
And who the hell are the "Us Skeptics" you think you are speaking for? A small bunch of fence-sitters who think they are so smart they can outsmart the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Without us real skeptics, we the doubters of every tenet of the AGW religion, you are nothing, Fred. You are nothing, nothing, nothing!<br />
<br />
You are free to believe in this AWG nonsense, Fred, if you so wish, but I'm warning you: don't come and tell us what to think! We are entitled to our own facts! That is what skepticism and science really is about.<br />
<br />
Luckily, <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name_comments.html#disqus_thread">the people that comment Fred's essay are almost uniformly against it</a>. They are only common folks, but they are much more well informed than Dr Singer. They are the true scientists and the real skeptics. It is Dr Singer, not them, that make us real skeptics a bad name. <br />
<br />
This is what some of these good people write.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name_comments.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1p7sKbMVj" style="color: #003399;">FalconTinker</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Fred, if I'm a denier for concluding that there's a conspiracy to suppress facts, then put me in that category. I think that the Climategate 'hide the decline' email proved that beyond a reasonable doubt.</blockquote>
<br />
<a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name_comments.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1p7snUD6V" style="color: #003399;">Vegetarian</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
This article seems a bit naive. When one realizes that the warmistas are not telling the truth, yet they are praised and rewarded by political allies, then you must conclude the whole theory is a scam and discount it. Now if independently one starts engaging in real science and starts proving a connection between CO2 and temperatures, then we can then start engaging in a real scientific process which must include individual verification. </blockquote>
<a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name_comments.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1p7tLtoug" style="color: #003399;">Jerseyvet</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The author doesn't address the common conclusion that the climate change kerfuffle is more religious than scientific. The Gaia worshippers are hellbent to protect and embrace the earth and its environment. Funny thing, one massive explosion of a volcano can do more damage in a fortnight than hundreds of factories spewing CO2 into the environment for a number of years!</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name_comments.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1p7tgbxV8" style="color: #003399;">nanNJ</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
How come all these wizards of smart still can't even predict the weather 3 days out? Put me on the denier side.</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name_comments.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1p7uAgl1C" style="color: #003399;">WeMustResist</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
I think that there is a Carbon Dioxide warming effect that had been found in labs but not in the field. I hope that make me a skeptic. <br />
I also think that the climate is changing every second. It is never the same. <br />
What I really deny is:<br />
1) Politicians can control the temperature of the atmosphere, or the troposphere, or the climate of this planet.<br />
2) The climate of the whole globe changed (at the same time) in the twentieth century.<br />
3) Any climate changes which have happened in two continents at the same time have been shown to have the same manmade cause in both continents.<br />
I am sure that events beyond the solar system change our climate much more than humans can change our climate.</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name_comments.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1p7uacoHV" style="color: #003399;">AnneCink</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
Supporters of global warming love to write about the diversity of interests on the subject. They talk about levels of agreement like <br />
"warmists" and "deniers". <br />
Yet, when it comes to financing their beliefs, where's the diversity? They want everyone to pay an equal part in support of their cause, whether you believe in it or not. If they want to put money down that hole, let them form a non-profit and donate their own money to it.</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name_comments.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1p7vVuZSX" style="color: #003399;">angrytom</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
No man can undo what God has done!Sorry Mr.Singer but if you think man can destroy this planet you are totally wrong! I seem to remember that during the last couple million years our earth has has experienced massive volcanic activity,massive flooding and other catastrophic events.here we are.We are still here.All you warmistas which you are one need to take a closer look at yourselves because your God complex is really getting tiresome!One man can kill another.But no man can kill the human race!And no one but nature(God) can undo what nature(God)has done!</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name_comments.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1p7wqXrgK" style="color: #003399;">angrytom:</a> <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
P.S.One super volcano eruption spews more pollutants than all the cars,trucks,boats,airplanes combined have produced in the history of the world!!</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name_comments.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1p7xMPxGN" style="color: #003399;">Rick+Johnson</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
What a safe position, Dr. Singer. This is the typical PC approach - both sides have their extremists. You probably think the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto had their extremists as well.</blockquote>
Lets finish with a funny picture:<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><br />
<a href="http://www.travelsignposts.com/Germany/files/2010/12/Nurnberg-Rallies.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="270" src="http://www.travelsignposts.com/Germany/files/2010/12/Nurnberg-Rallies.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"Who believes that CO2 causes global warming? <br />
Then the science is settled. Sehr gut, mein Volk!"</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-88253887675243081782012-03-12T09:33:00.000-07:002012-03-12T09:33:54.373-07:00Now at WUWT: Astrologer refutes global warming from chlorofluorocarbonsIt is always nice to see a real scientist from one of the hard sciences take on the pseudoscientific superstition of "global climate warming change". Therefore, the post <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/09/a-view-of-climate-on-the-ground-from-a-reporter-who-was-there-at-the-beginning/">'A view of climate “on the ground” from a reporter who was there at the beginning'</a> on WUWT by distinguished <a href="http://globalastrologyblog.blogspot.com/">astrologer</a> Theodore White is a must read. I quote:<br />
<blockquote>...<br />
But I digress – in short, when I wrote pieces on the climate, I refused to write on the theory that chlorofluorocarbons were the sole cause of worldwide warming because that had never been proved. Now, though there was evidence that the use of aerosols were clearly evident in the upper atmosphere; the data did not support that this was the cause of the fear-mongering on ozone holes which was all the rage in the climate community of the late 1980s and 1990s.<br />
...<br />
Follow the money pushing the ideological AGW lie. If one examines climate science funding from 1986 to 1996 and then from 1996 to the present – you may find some amazing numbers.<br />
Incredible amounts – increasing yearly and wasted on every bigger and more expensive computers to run models. Careerists who cannot forecast seasonal weather were making things up (and began to alter weather data on purpose) while spending lavishly on computers pushing the AGW ideology – all at the public’s great expense.<br />
....<br />
Still, by 1989, the AGW science did not make sense to me in light that it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Which I remind everyone – remains in effect to this very day.<br />
<br />
Anyhow, it did not seem to matter to Wirth’s office, Hansen, or the growing careerists at NCAR and NOAA; because whomever was pushing ‘man-made global warming’ on the United States, were also doing it at the international level too.<br />
<br />
My view was that it was a conspiracy right from the start to bamboozle the world on the lie of anthropogenic global warming sandbagging much of the mainstream media, the markets and the educational system to not believe their own eyes and ears.<br />
....</blockquote><br />
With such high-quality contributions, it is no wonder that <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/weblog-awards-2/">Whats Up with Watts won the 2012 Weblog Award for Best Science or Technology Weblog</a>.Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-22773778374594655632012-02-21T12:40:00.000-08:002012-02-21T12:44:39.981-08:00Warning: The previous post was a fakeThe previous post about the Heartlend Institute issuing an apology was a fake. I did not write it. Somebody else must have sneaked in while I had left my computer on and entered that horrible piece of trash. Those eco-fascist traffic lights - to green to yellow that they are red - stop at nothing before they have destroyed all of human civilization! But this shameless forgery will be the final nail in the rotten and worm-ridden coffin of the bloated global warming alarmist corpse! Ha!<br />
<br />
I have this to say to the shameless person who perpetrated this crime.<br />
<br />
Baron von Monckhofen views the malicious and fraudulent manner in which this Fake Post was put on his blog, as providing the basis for civil actions against those who put it there. Baron von Monckhofen fully intends to pursue all possible actionable civil remedies to the fullest extent of the law.<br />
<br />
Baron von Monckhofen respectfully demands: (1) that the responsible person removes the Fake Post from Baron von Monckhofen 's web site; (2) that the same person remove from Baron von Monckhofen 's web site all posts that refer or relate in any manner to the Fake Post ; (3) that the same person removes from Baron von Monckhofen 's web site any and all quotations from the Fake Post; (4) that the same person publishes retractions on Baron von Monckhofen's web site of prior postings; and (5) that same person removes all such documents from Baron von Monckhofen's server.<br />
<br />
One obvious suspect in the Heartlend Post Fakery case -- and this is just my speculation -- is one of my ex wifes, Olga. Olga is a committed alarmist rent-seeker who seems quite bitter.Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-33111586290420798812012-02-21T12:17:00.000-08:002012-02-21T12:40:45.141-08:00Heartlend apologizes for deceptionIn an unexpected move today, the dear people at the Heartlend Institute followed <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html">the example of Peter Gleick</a> and issued an apology to all of humankind for their many deceptions. Joseph Bust, the Heartlend Institute chair, declared:<br />
<blockquote>I was deeply move by Peter Gleick's heartfelt apology and his expression of remorse. I have realized that it is time that also we at the Heartlend Institute consider the moral implications of our actions. When I look back at what we have been doing for many years, regarding the climate, the environment, smoking and so on, I feel deeply ashamed. Peter Gleick may have lied to one of our staffers in order to get those documents, but we have systematically been lying to all of humanity during all of our existence. So please, don't be angry with Gleick: it is us that you should be angry with. We beg on our bare knees for forgiveness for our anti-climate, anti-environment, anti-health and anti-science activities, and we promise that we will never do it again.<br />
We also want to apologize to the IRS for falsely pretending to be a public charity. We are so sorry! Take all the money you want! </blockquote>Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-91717602874815728352011-12-14T10:24:00.000-08:002011-12-14T10:26:41.429-08:00The retreat has begun!From the eminent blog <a href="http://notrickszone.com/2011/12/12/renowed-warmist-scientist-mojib-latif-says-humans-could-be-responsible-for-only-0-35%C2%B0c-in-100-years/">NoTricksZone</a> run by the intrepid P Gosselin we learn about the beginning of the desperate retreat of the warmists. Gosselin reports:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><div><i>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.</i></div><div><i>This is what German climate expert Professor Mojib Latif said in an interview this morning with NDR public radio.</i></div></blockquote>And what did Latif Say? Fasten you seat belts, folks, he said this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>"The fact is that there is climate change. The fact is that man is also at least <strong>50% responsible</strong> for the warming over the last 100 years.”</i></blockquote>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 <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html">ICCCP</a> bible:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>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.</i></blockquote><div>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!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://bibleencyclopedia.com/picturesjpeg/Walls_of_Jericho_1217-94.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://bibleencyclopedia.com/picturesjpeg/Walls_of_Jericho_1217-94.jpg" /></a></div><br />
</div>Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-72639270376565818502011-11-26T02:11:00.000-08:002011-11-26T02:31:50.549-08:00More Climategate 2.0 - the arrogance of the Team<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Codex_Gigas_devil.jpg/200px-Codex_Gigas_devil.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Codex_Gigas_devil.jpg/200px-Codex_Gigas_devil.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">"...we know they are as black<br />
as Beelzebub's rear end."</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>The MSM is really botching the great Climategate 2.0 scandal. They even <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/24/leaked-climate-science-emails">publish articles trying to "explain" what the quoted passages mean</a>, 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.<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://foia2011.org/">http://foia2011.org</a>. Just start looking for suitable phrases and I promise you: there is plenty to be found.<br />
<br />
Such as this email (<a href="http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=26">#20</a>), 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!<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Courier New', Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 17px;"><br />
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<br />
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:<br />
http://www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=045D5241-FD00-4773-B816-76222A771778<br />
<br />
It was a scream. He argued there is no such thing as global temperature<br />
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 <br />
</span></span></blockquote>Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-1666485734201382732011-11-24T12:19:00.000-08:002011-11-24T13:23:21.935-08:00IPCC and the Team use magicc!<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn.gunaxin.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/magica_despell.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://cdn.gunaxin.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/magica_despell.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Will this wicked and wanton sorceress be a lead author of <br />
the next IPCC report? </td></tr>
</tbody></table>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 <a href="http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/FOIA/mail/0182.txt">email #182</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">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.</pre></blockquote> 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?<br />
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!Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-49342199776994152202011-11-23T10:33:00.000-08:002011-11-23T10:37:53.049-08:00FOIA2011 emails reveal secret alarmist baseThe new and better updated <a href="http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/">Climategate 2.0</a> 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 <a href="http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/FOIA/mail/">I found among the liberated emails</a> (<a href="http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/FOIA/mail/3346.txt">#3346</a>) after a few seconds of browsing:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">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</pre></blockquote> Now, what on earth is the "base" they are talking about? it can only mean one thing:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://pinktentacle.com/images/secret_pyramid.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="298" src="http://pinktentacle.com/images/secret_pyramid.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
And this is from <a href="http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/FOIA/mail/3307.txt">#3307</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">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</pre></blockquote>What do they mean by "major"? That is a military rank. Obviously, they are organizing some kind of army:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgU3Y3Seh2OzoO8cF9HHdh9QKCxeo5UWLqVzFVhUDm2iUM0IBrwARRAiWEFGLkBI4QFDlf3MHNgOvBXX_3orsyCeOPfwGyuSegCAaakA-zGguzpLx7SVU2P83Qq2ogQ_EJcBt-93MEp4Xo/s1600/German+Army.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="246" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgU3Y3Seh2OzoO8cF9HHdh9QKCxeo5UWLqVzFVhUDm2iUM0IBrwARRAiWEFGLkBI4QFDlf3MHNgOvBXX_3orsyCeOPfwGyuSegCAaakA-zGguzpLx7SVU2P83Qq2ogQ_EJcBt-93MEp4Xo/s320/German+Army.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
From <a href="http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/FOIA/mail/1858.txt">#1858</a> we get the following revelation about an evil network of mind-controlled lackeys that cover the entire world:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">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</pre></blockquote>Finally, in <a href="http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/FOIA/mail/1687.txt">#1687</a> 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:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">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.</pre></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">These terrible secrets we uncovered after only a couple of minutes of browsing in the FOIA2011 archives. </span> 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!Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-91827454821553920102011-10-28T12:20:00.000-07:002011-10-28T12:22:14.704-07:00Time to stand up for Willis<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Red-bellied_Black_Snake.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Red-bellied_Black_Snake.jpg" width="251" /></a></div>A lot of people have reason to be upset by the abominable BEST propaganda campaign. But few people have been <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/24/what-the-best-data-actually-says">as badly abused by the sly BEST man Muller as our dear Willis</a>! But Willis stands firm! In a comment, he says:<br />
<blockquote>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.<br />
<br />
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.</blockquote>(The snake in the picture represents Muller, by the way. This is not an ad <i>hominem</i>, but rather an <i>ad serpentem</i>! I was thinking about using a picture of a whore instead, but this is a family blog).<br />
<br />
Let not Willis stand alone. Today we must all be Willis! I am Willis, you are Willis, we are all Willis!<br />
<br />
Also read what <a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/a/13403/MITs-Richard-Lindzen--Physicist-David-Douglass-Mullers-findings-of-warming-arenothing-remarkable--BEST-study-does-not-alter-Climategates-serious-breaches-of-ethics">Dick Lindzen has to say about BEST</a>.Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-10767400911020249222011-10-26T10:48:00.000-07:002011-10-26T12:08:11.501-07:00BEST is up to no good<a href="http://berkeleyearth.org/images/Updated_Comparison_10.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="157" src="http://berkeleyearth.org/images/Updated_Comparison_10.jpg" width="200" /></a>Hope you enjoyed the funny title of today's post. It is about the disgraceful <a href="http://www.berkeleyearth.org/">Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project</a> 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? <br />
<embed allowfullscreen="false" allowscriptaccess="always" flashvars="file=http://dc119.4shared.com/img/837125294/777ce0ac/dlink__2Fdownload_2FArwKrWk4_3Ftsid_3D00000000-000000-00000000/preview.mp3&volume=50&" height="20" id="ply" name="ply" quality="high" src="http://www.4shared.com/flash/player.swf?ver=9051" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="200" wmode="opaque"></embed> Powered by <a href="http://mp3skull.com/">mp3skull.com</a><script src="http://mp3skull.com/embedcl.php" type="text/javascript">
</script><br />
But how do they then explain this graph form <i>Newsweek</i> 1975? This amazing graph was revealed by <a href="http://www.real-science.com/rewriting-ministry-truth">Steven Goddard</a>. 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.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ScreenHunter_10-Oct.-25-04.58.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ScreenHunter_10-Oct.-25-04.58.jpg" width="512" /></a></div><br />
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 <a href="http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2011/10/23/wapo-punked-berkeley-warmist-posing-skeptic">Tony Bummer at NewsBustiers</a> for digging up that nugget! Fortunately, there are a few climate scientists with integrity still left, like Judith Curry!<br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9217-greenhouse-gas-theory-trashed-in-groundbreaking-lab-experiment">ClimateChangeDispatch</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><b>Greenhouse Gas Theory Trashed in Groundbreaking Lab Experiment</b><br />
WRITTEN BY JOHN O'SULLIVAN | JULY 18 2011 </blockquote><blockquote><br />
Greenhouse gas theory of global warming is refuted in momentous Mexican lab experiment. Results mean epic fail for doomsaying cult and climate taxes.<br />
<br />
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..<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Nahle Nails Shut Climate Scare Coffin<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Read rest <a href="http://climaterealists.com/?id=8073">here</a>.</blockquote>So that's it. Global warming theory is dead, and has got the final nail in its rotting coffin! Ha ha ha ha!<br />
<embed allowfullscreen="false" allowscriptaccess="always" flashvars="file=http://dc121.4shared.com/img/413281962/6ca9b95/dlink__2Fdownload_2F_5FK8nZw5M_3Ftsid_3D00000000-000000-00000000/preview.mp3&volume=50&" height="20" id="ply" name="ply" quality="high" src="http://www.4shared.com/flash/player.swf?ver=9051" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="200" wmode="opaque"></embed> Powered by <a href="http://mp3skull.com/">mp3skull.com</a><script src="http://mp3skull.com/embedcl.php" type="text/javascript">
</script><br />
Take that, Richard Muller!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/climate101_video_at_109.jpg?w=640&h=360" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/climate101_video_at_109.jpg?w=640&h=360" width="320" /></a></div>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:<br />
<br />
<ul><li><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/28/video-analysis-and-scene-replication-suggests-that-al-gores-climate-reality-project-fabricated-their-climate-101-video-simple-experiment/">Video analysis and scene replication suggests that Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project fabricated their Climate 101 video “Simple Experiment”</a></li>
<li><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/">Replicating Al Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment shows that his “high school physics” could never work as advertised</a></li>
</ul><br />
Thank God there are people who - unlike Muller - knows how to dedicate their time to <b>important things</b>! Thank you, Anthony Watts!Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-67723928167664808372011-10-09T08:03:00.000-07:002011-10-09T08:06:05.280-07:00Galileo was a skeptic, damn it!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Galileo_facing_the_Roman_Inquisition.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="244" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Galileo_facing_the_Roman_Inquisition.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
It is really going downhill with the American Institute of Physics. They have just <a href="http://physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v64/i10/p39_s1?bypassSSO=1">published a disgraceful article by some individual by the name of Steven Sherwood in <i>Physics Today</i></a>. 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.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://physicstoday.org/FEWebservices/ImagesWebservice?id=PHTOAD000064000010000039000001&type=online&fid=4" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="242" src="http://physicstoday.org/FEWebservices/ImagesWebservice?id=PHTOAD000064000010000039000001&type=online&fid=4" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<br />
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 <i>are</i> 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 <a href="http://www.galileomovement.com.au/galileo_movement.php">Galileo movement</a>. And we can also add Erl Happ to this list, after his <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/06/high-level-cloud-and-surface-temperature/">brilliant article</a> about high level clouds and surface temperature at WUWT. These are the Copernicuses and Galileos and Einsteins of today!<br />
<br />
And what's this thing about Einstein?<a href="http://theclimatescum.blogspot.com/2011/10/bryce-in-wsj-five-truths-about-climate.html"> Einstein was wrong, damn it!</a> Haven't they heard that at the American Institute of Physics? What a bunch of dolts!Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-68680327172407075042011-10-09T02:10:00.000-07:002011-10-09T02:15:22.212-07:00Bryce in WSJ: Five Truths About Climate ChangeRobert Bryce has a must-read-at-once-and-blog-about opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, where he states<b> <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203388804576612620828387968.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">Five Truths About Climate Change</a>. </b>Here are the five truths (excerpts):<br />
<blockquote>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%. ....<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
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. .... <br />
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.</blockquote>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 <i>we</i> 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.<br />
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:<br />
<ol><li>The abolitionists have lost! There are actually more slaves that 10 years ago!</li>
<li> We are going to need more slaves in order to remain productive and comfortable<br />
</li>
<li> Slaves are not just about the United States. Other countries, like Russia, have them too.</li>
<li> We are getting better at breeding and using the slaves.</li>
<li> 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.) </li>
</ol>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.<br />
<br />
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!Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-9797467341074587952011-08-23T04:41:00.000-07:002011-08-23T13:13:34.620-07:00NSF: It is reasonable to suspect Mann of falsifying dataAn <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/NSF%20Mann%20vindiction.pdf">investigation by the National Science Foundation</a> 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:<br />
<blockquote>"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."</blockquote>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?<br />
<br />
Obviously, the Warmistas will <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/22/300821/nsf-inspector-general-investigation-michael-mann/">desperately try to spin this in any ways they can</a>! It's time to jump off the AGW bandwagon now, boys!<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<blockquote>"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."</blockquote><blockquote>"Such scientific debate is ongoing, but does not, in itself, constitute evidence of research misconduct."</blockquote><blockquote> "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."</blockquote><blockquote>"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."</blockquote>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 <a href="heclimatescum.blogspot.com/2010/11/greenland-not-so-green-in-medieval.html">Arabs colonized Greenland</a> 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.<br />
<br />
Update 2:<a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12419/Climategates-Michael-Mann-cleared-of-wrongdoing-by-National-Science-Foundation"> Marc Morano at Climate Depot</a> agrees with my analysis: <br />
<blockquote>"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"</blockquote>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!Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-3758823037407818112011-08-21T07:58:00.000-07:002011-08-21T08:06:19.439-07:00Anthony Bright-Paul winner of 2011 von Monckhofen Award for Pedagogical Excellence<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://thumb11.shutterstock.com/thumb_small/414952/414952,1263726642,13/stock-photo-golden-cup-44654779.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://thumb11.shutterstock.com/thumb_small/414952/414952,1263726642,13/stock-photo-golden-cup-44654779.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<div><br />
</div>As further motivation, I will simply let <a href="http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/the-history-of-wrong-conclusions/">Mr Bright-Paul's text</a> speak for itself:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>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.<br />
...<br />
These questions concern the properties of gases. The question here is whether gases are active or passive?<br />
<br />
Can Carbon Dioxide be frozen?<br />
Can Carbon Dioxide be liquefied?<br />
Can Carbon Dioxide be cooled?<br />
Can Carbon Dioxide be warmed? <br />
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.<br />
<br />
Let us do the same with Water Vapour?<br />
...<br />
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!)<br />
...<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.</blockquote>Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-46440265324048805662011-08-17T11:53:00.000-07:002011-08-17T11:59:11.892-07:00Underground volcanoes, not humans, are causing rising CO2Our friends at WUWT recently had <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/11/undersea-volcanoes-might-be-more-common-than-previously-thought/">a post about underwater volcanoes.</a> 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.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://photos.demandstudios.com/getty/article/251/96/87812763_XS.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://photos.demandstudios.com/getty/article/251/96/87812763_XS.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Underground volcano (courtesy <a href="http://traveltips.usatoday.com/there-underground-volcano-near-cape-hatteras-north-carolina-63281.html">USA Today</a>) </td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
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.”<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/bilder/CO2_proj900.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="140" src="http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/bilder/CO2_proj900.gif" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Temperature and CO2 the last centuries <a href="http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/statements.htm">according to E. Beck</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>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.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZMafB-lG7aA/TQA3KrikWJI/AAAAAAAAALw/8DuEhguqtks/s640/GIROC_Alpha_Mole1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="186" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZMafB-lG7aA/TQA3KrikWJI/AAAAAAAAALw/8DuEhguqtks/s320/GIROC_Alpha_Mole1.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Mole drill for exploring Earth's interior</td></tr>
</tbody></table>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!<br />
<br />
<br />
Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com28tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-58701634662565927452011-08-13T08:19:00.000-07:002011-08-13T08:25:29.837-07:00Joe Bastardi repeats my argumentIn a <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/12/bastardi-science-and-reality-point-away-not-toward-co2-as-climate-driver/">guest post at WUWT</a>, meteorologist Joe Bastardi repeats the argument <a href="http://theclimatescum.blogspot.com/2011/08/salby-demolishes-agw-theory.html">I made recently</a> 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:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/The_global_temperature_chart-545x409.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="409" width="545" src="http://flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/The_global_temperature_chart-545x409.jpg" /></a></div>Bastardi shows this one, which is very similar:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/bastardi-hadcrut15-years.gif?w=640&h=514" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="434" width="545" src="http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/bastardi-hadcrut15-years.gif?w=640&h=514" /></a></div>Note that Bastardi has added a big blue arrow to show that temperatures have been going down the last 15 years.<br />
<br />
Great minds think alike! (Though I wish Bastardi would have given me due credit).<br />
<br />
Bastardi's excellent guest post is a follow up of <a href="http://video.foxnews.com/v/1096489463001/climate-change-myths-separating-fact-from-fiction">an interview on Fox News</a>. It is compulsory watching!<br />
Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-58328068632167155142011-08-11T05:24:00.000-07:002011-08-11T05:43:06.957-07:00Monckton in NZ TV<iframe width="400" height="265" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5ODCTPGmERw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br />
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 <a href="http://theclimatescum.blogspot.com/2010/06/lord-christopher-monckton-3rd-viscount.html">the lies he has been spreading</a> 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.<br />
<br />
We also support the efforts of <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html">John Coleman and 30,000 scientist to sue Al Gore</a>.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<object width='320' height='240'><param name='movie' value='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/pl55.swf'></param><param name='flashvars' value='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg3?id=201108100009'></param><param name='allowscriptaccess' value='always'></param><param name='allownetworking' value='all'></param><embed src='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/pl55.swf' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' flashvars='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg3?id=201108100009' allowscriptaccess='always' allowfullscreen='true' width='320' height='240'></embed></object><br />
<br />
<br />
Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-37043100326702076342011-08-08T12:16:00.000-07:002011-08-08T12:25:33.384-07:00Salby demolishes AGW theoryFrom <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/">that excellent blog Climate Etc</a>, I have learned about a new paradigm-shifting scientific article by climate professor Murry Salby from Macquarie University. Well, strictly speaking it is a <a href="http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/podcast/global-emission-of-carbon-dioxide-the-contribution-from-natural-sources/">pod cast</a> 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! <br />
<br />
The Earth’s carbon cycle is not a topic on which I have any expertise. Therefore, I instead give you carbon cycle expert <a href="http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/new_research_warmth_produces_these_carbon_dioxide_concentrations">Andrew Bolt's summary</a> of Salby's results:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>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.<br />
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.</i></blockquote><br />
Wow.<br />
<br />
Wohohow!<br />
<br />
Yippiyayayayay!<br />
<br />
Wobedobedoboo!<br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Here are a couple of points we can discuss:<br />
<br />
<ul><li>Is it temperature that is driving CO2, and not the other way around?</li>
<li>Does this mean that human CO2 emissions are insignificant? That they neither influence the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere (or elsewhere) nor the temperature?</li>
<li>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?</li>
<li>Why is Al Gore buying seaside real estate?</li>
</ul><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/The_global_temperature_chart-545x409.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/The_global_temperature_chart-545x409.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<br />
This graph on the other hand shows how well temperature and CO2 correlate. This is evidence that temperature is driving CO2.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/The_global_temperature_chart-545x409.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/The_global_temperature_chart-545x409.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
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. <br />
<br />
The alarmist says: we know that human activities emit carbon dioxide. Yes, even more carbon dioxide than the increase in the atmosphere.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
But, says the alarmist, where does the human carbon dioxide go? Does it just disappear?<br />
<br />
We reply: Haven't you heard about taxes? Money disappearing nobody knows whereto? It is the same thing with carbon dioxide.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
We reply: Economic growth. Capitalism and free markets generate more money. Same thing with carbon dioxide.<br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-24414370217397317152011-08-07T10:45:00.000-07:002011-08-08T12:08:57.086-07:00Arctic Sea Ice RecoveryThe Arctic sea ice extent is now above what it was in the corresponding period in 2007 according to <a href="http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/">NSIDC</a>. 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!<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhooFCAoQz4O_mDeDVNB-u0cEGP4Pg1w1X7ps0rYAcQlgSkYXVTtfoNvTjhb8i7td8jYOR-RuQU98wjMVoCtw4HMAgqXY5Unz47cVk7Z35ZtP5DHNu6JwOcFMth8sGJ_Hu9-5pYou0Z7ac/s1600/N_stddev_timeseries.png++1050%25C3%2597840.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="296" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhooFCAoQz4O_mDeDVNB-u0cEGP4Pg1w1X7ps0rYAcQlgSkYXVTtfoNvTjhb8i7td8jYOR-RuQU98wjMVoCtw4HMAgqXY5Unz47cVk7Z35ZtP5DHNu6JwOcFMth8sGJ_Hu9-5pYou0Z7ac/s400/N_stddev_timeseries.png++1050%25C3%2597840.png" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">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 <strike>1997</strike>1979-2000, 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. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">NSIDC get their money from federal agencies, and of course they want to keep the cash flowing even when the ice is not melting.</div>Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2571224676782548045.post-55912654874061234752011-08-07T08:12:00.000-07:002011-08-07T09:42:21.453-07:00Wood mashes Mashey<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.nas.org/polImage.cfm?Doc_Id=1737&size_code=small" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://www.nas.org/polImage.cfm?Doc_Id=1737&size_code=small" width="172" /></a></div>In <i>Chronicle of Higher Education</i>, NAS president Peter Wood (picture) delivers a devastating critique of the warmistas in two articles: <a href="http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/bottling-up-global-warming-skepticism/29754">Bottling Up Global Warming Skepticism</a> and <a href="http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/climate-thuggery">Climate Thuggery</a>. 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: <a href="http://www.nas.org/">National Association of Scholars</a>.<br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
One alarmist who has much in common with P T Barnum is John Mashey. <a href="http://theclimatescum.blogspot.com/2010/10/baseless-plagiarism-accusations-against.html">I wrote</a> about Mashey's shameless attacks against Edward Wegman, the worlds best statistician, last autumn. In his piece, Woods writes:<br />
<blockquote><i>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.”</i></blockquote>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 <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/10/wegman-plagiarism-investigation-/1">under investigation for plagiarism</a>. We skeptics would never do anything so mean. We are honorable people! Remember Climategate!<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<blockquote><i>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.” </i></blockquote>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. <i>"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)."</i> <a href="http://www.examiner.com/climate-change-in-national/hide-the-decline-music-video-parodies-climategate-michael-mann-and-al-gore">That video was so funny!</a> And scientific! <i>"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."</i><br />
<br />
<br />
Mashey and co-thug Coleman try to retaliate in a <a href="http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/guest-post-bottling-nonsense-mis-using-a-civil-platform">piece of their own in CHI</a>: <br />
<blockquote><i>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.</i></blockquote>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:<br />
<blockquote><i>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.</i></blockquote>Baron von Monckhofenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894620453419004801noreply@blogger.com21