The Climate Scum

The retreat has begun!

2011-12-14T10:24:00.000-08:00

From the eminent blog NoTricksZone run by the intrepid P Gosselin we learn about the beginning of the desperate retreat of the warmists. Gosselin reports:

Usually warmists screech that humans are 95% responsible for the recent warming, and that huge positive water vapor feedbacks will get involved in the future. So it’s not very often you hear a warmist admit that humans perhaps could be just half responsible for the warming of the last 100 years.
This is what German climate expert Professor Mojib Latif said in an interview this morning with NDR public radio.

And what did Latif Say? Fasten you seat belts, folks, he said this:

"The fact is that there is climate change. The fact is that man is also at least 50% responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.”

Yes, your eyes are not deceiving you: he said "50%". That is 0.35 degrees! That's practically nothing. It is clear that the global warming rats are leaving the sinking climate change ship. It is a nearly incredible u-turn relative to the orthodox ICCCP position. According to the ICCCP bible:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

Of course, you can expect Latif to be hounded and vilified by the warmist inquisition after this unambiguous admission that the ICCCP is wrong and there is no climate threat. He is surely not going to get any more science grants after he has deserted the dogma of the global warming religion: his days at the gravy train are past. But this is a sure sign that the Berlin Wall of the eco-fascistic mega bureaucracy is beginning to crack, and the cracks will become larger and more until the whole unholy edifice comes tumbling down just like the walls of Jericho!

More Climategate 2.0 - the arrogance of the Team

2011-11-26T02:11:00.000-08:00

"...we know they are as black
as Beelzebub's rear end."

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

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

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

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

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

IPCC and the Team use magicc!

2011-11-24T12:19:00.000-08:00

Will this wicked and wanton sorceress be a lead author of
the next IPCC report?

New revelations about the boundless depravity of the Team and the Stygian darkness in the corrupted heart of the IPCC! They claimed to do science, but a newly released Climategate 2.0 email has uncovered evidence that the degenerate organisation whose mission is claimed to be to summarize climate science actually is dabbling in unholy and blasphemous magiccal rites. From email #182:

Sarah,
I realize that you have got a copy of this.
What I am concerned about is the use of MAGICC in AR4. It is likely that the only way that MAGICC can be legitimately used is for it to be (again!) calibrated against the various AOGCMs being run for AR4. The AOGCM data that will be available this time will allow us to do this more comprehensively than your TAR analysis. I think this is something we should do together this time.

They are even conspiring to make their filthy black arts legitimate! This can in no way be allowed - such debased practices must be severely punished by the Law! And what are they going to use the tar for? To smear their brave and truth-loving opponents? And what unspeakable evil from the nether abysses of Hell are AOGCMs? And exactly what wicked and debauched "something" are Sarah and Ben going to do together? it is just getting worse and worse. Why are the MSM not reporting this?
Thank the Lord that blog science can be a bulwark against this avalanche of devilry. There are still rational and skeptical people like myself with both feet safely planted in the realm of reality who can counter the lies and deceptions of the IPCC and its Team!

FOIA2011 emails reveal secret alarmist base

2011-11-23T10:33:00.000-08:00

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

Dear Phil,

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

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

   Best regards,


   Jon

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

And this is from #3307:

Just to you - seems you could go a little further and be more clear as Stefan suggests.
     Not a major change. Your call, though. Thanks, Peck

What do they mean by "major"? That is a military rank. Obviously, they are organizing some kind of army:

From #1858 we get the following revelation about an evil network of mind-controlled lackeys that cover the entire world:

The ultimate strategy is to get a collaborative centre at a number of
   regions throughout the world and build a network of like-minded people

Finally, in #1687 we find irrefutable evidence that the global warming cabal has been colluding with Google in order to prevent the truth about so-called global warming to come out:

As you know, I was also going to follow-up with Google in California
(and maybe NY), about the data visualization angle and their overall
interest. Not sure if this would be something to also make it into the
NYT foray, but please send over whatever you have as update from the
Exeter meeting that could possibly build upon the work that Philip,
Stefan, and I have done.

These terrible secrets we uncovered after only a couple of minutes of browsing in the FOIA2011 archives. Who knows what other evil conspiracies and sinister plots are waiting to be brought into the light by blog science? Lots, I can tell you, lots!

Time to stand up for Willis

2011-10-28T12:20:00.000-07:00

A lot of people have reason to be upset by the abominable BEST propaganda campaign. But few people have been as badly abused by the sly BEST man Muller as our dear Willis! But Willis stands firm! In a comment, he says:

Me, I’ve had it up to here with being lied to by Muller, I’m fed up to my eye-teeth with his tricks and his whoring for the media. Sure, I could pretend Muller is an honest and honorable man like you recommend. But his actions have shown him to be a cunning snake. It is not my habit to address snakes as though they were honorable men.

Note, however, that none of these are “ad hominems”, as I make no claim that Muller being a snake has affected his mathematics or altered his results in the slightest. The data is the data, it says what it says despite Muller’s reptilian ways. I am not arguing against the data, there is no ad-hominem.

(The snake in the picture represents Muller, by the way. This is not an ad hominem, but rather an ad serpentem! I was thinking about using a picture of a whore instead, but this is a family blog).

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

Also read what Dick Lindzen has to say about BEST.

BEST is up to no good

2011-10-26T10:48:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nahle Nails Shut Climate Scare Coffin

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

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

Read rest here.

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

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

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

Galileo was a skeptic, damn it!

2011-10-09T08:03:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

Bryce in WSJ: Five Truths About Climate Change

2011-10-09T02:10:00.000-07:00

Robert Bryce has a must-read-at-once-and-blog-about opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, where he states Five Truths About Climate Change. Here are the five truths (excerpts):

1) The carbon taxers/limiters have lost. Carbon-dioxide emissions have been the environmental issue of the past decade. .... Here's a reality check: During the same decade that Mr. Gore and the IPCC dominated the environmental debate, global carbon-dioxide emissions rose by 28.5%. ....
2) Regardless of whether it's getting hotter or colder—or both—we are going to need to produce a lot more energy in order to remain productive and comfortable.
3) The carbon-dioxide issue is not about the United States anymore. Sure, the U.S. is the world's second-largest energy consumer. But over the past decade, carbon-dioxide emissions in the U.S. fell by 1.7%. ... Meanwhile, China's emissions jumped by 123% over the past decade and now exceed those of the U.S.
4) We have to get better—and we are—at turning energy into useful power. .... Nearly all of the things we use on a daily basis—light bulbs, computers, automobiles—are vastly more efficient than they were just a few years ago. ....
5) The science is not settled, not by a long shot. Last month, scientists at CERN, the prestigious high-energy physics lab in Switzerland, reported that neutrinos might—repeat, might—travel faster than the speed of light. If serious scientists can question Einstein's theory of relativity, then there must be room for debate about the workings and complexities of the Earth's atmosphere.

Take that! The stupid tree-hugging people who wanted to cut emissions to save of from "the climate catastrophe" lost, and the rest of humanity won! Anyhow, whether there is a problem or not, we still need more energy. That is still much more important than any alleged climate threat. Other countries are increasing their emissions, so why would we have to do anything? Devices are becoming increasingly more energy efficient, so we are going to want more devices and hence more energy in the future and cannot reduce emissions even if we wanted to. Finally, if Einstein - who was a bloody genius - can be wrong, why would we believe anything that those pesky climate scientists say? Or any scientists for that matter.
The whole thing reminds me about the discussion of pros and cons of slavery (before it was abolished). Now, I know that what I'm about to write might seem a bit politically incorrect, and I want to emphasize that I'm not advocating slavery (though I think it is important that we are allowed to discuss the issue). That most people think that slavery is wrong today is besides the point - we are considering the perfectly valid perspective of slave owners in the past. So here are five truths about slavery, as they might have been seen during the first half of the 19th century:

The abolitionists have lost! There are actually more slaves that 10 years ago!
We are going to need more slaves in order to remain productive and comfortable
Slaves are not just about the United States. Other countries, like Russia, have them too.
We are getting better at breeding and using the slaves.
Newton has been proven wrong so the science is not settled about slavery. (I couldn't write "Einstein" here, because he wasn't born yet.)

Note that the above are not my personal views: they are just intended to illustrate the soundness of Bryce's five points by means of a historical analogy. And as a matter of fact, the alleged slave problem eventually solved itself, without the need for any "slave taxes" or any world governance. The explanation is simple: during the second half of the 19th century, industrialism made slavery obsolete. The former slaves became happy employees. And if there really is a climate problem, I'm sure that it will also soon be solved by itself, without any "carbon taxes" or world governance.

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

NSF: It is reasonable to suspect Mann of falsifying data

2011-08-23T04:41:00.000-07:00

An investigation by the National Science Foundation into the Climategate scandal has come to the conclusion that there are strong grounds for suspicions against Michael "Hide the decline" Mann and his accomplices. The report concludes:

"As noted above, no specific allegation or evidence of data fabrication or falsification was made to the University; rather, the University developed its allegation of data falsification based on a reading of publicly released emails, many of which contained language that reasonably caused individuals, not party to the communications, to suspect some impropriety on the part of the authors."

We were right all along. Finally, we have been vindicated! Now please can we get back all the countless billions of our tax-payers dollars and euros spent on this fraud?

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

Update: As can be observed below, the forces of misdirection and desinformation are already gathering. There are some statements in the report that unfortunately are somewhat ambiguous when taken out of context, and it is those statements the trolls predictably are trying to spin. They include:

"Although the Subject's data is still available and still the focus of significant critical examination, no direct evidence has been presented that indicates the Subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results."

"Such scientific debate is ongoing, but does not, in itself, constitute evidence of research misconduct."

"Concerning False Claims, 18 USC #287 and 31 USC ##3729-33 and False Statement, 18 USC #1001, we examined the elements of each suggested offense and have concluded that there is insufficient evidence of violation of any of these statutes to warrant investigation."

"We reviewed the emails and concluded that nothing contained in them evidenced research misconduct withing the definition of the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation. ... We found no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence."

While some unscrupulous individuals will claim that this means that Mann is innocent like a little lamb with a shiny white fleece that has just been white washed, we know that what it really says is that Mann and his Team have hidden all the evidence, just like they did "hide the decline of global temperatures the last decades." Indeed, we know and have always known that the Team-tribe is up to no good. Why are they trying to hide that Arabs colonized Greenland during the very very hot medieval period? We are very skeptical about the whole AGW thing, and nothing you say is ever going to change our mind! We stand up for the truth, against enviro-tyranny.

Update 2: Marc Morano at Climate Depot agrees with my analysis:

"It doesn't conclude there is 'nothing wrong' with Mann's conclusions, all it concludes is there is no basis to conclude he did anything improper WITH NSF FUNDING"

Precisely! Maybe Mann did his falsifications with money he stole from orphans, or earned by trafficking, or counterfeited, or got as bribes from the rising Soviet Union. Until that has been disproved, we have no choice but to consider him guilty as charged!

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

2011-08-21T07:58:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Underground volcanoes, not humans, are causing rising CO2

2011-08-17T11:53:00.000-07:00

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

Underground volcano (courtesy USA Today)

We know very little about what can be found deep in the Earth's crust. NASA is sending rockets to penetrate Uranus, but very little is done to probe the depths of the bowels of our own home planet, mother Earth. This is a sad state of affairs. Hence, we don't know how many underground volcanoes there are. There might be billions, hidden from our eyes by miles of Earth's crust. There might be huge underground volcanoes, the size of Alaska, and we have no idea about them. And they are all emitting carbon dioxide on a scale that dwarfs our puny human emissions. The so-called "climate scientists" simply haven't taken this into account in their "models" of the so-called "carbon cycle". The IPCC has, not surprisingly, been silent about the topic. Image the arrogance of climate modelers who assume that they know all the major natural processes. Let alone their impact. Just tweak the right parameters and viola the model fits the data, even though it is incomplete. “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”

Temperature and CO2 the last centuries according to E. Beck

The graph above shows how carbon dioxide has fluctuated the last centuries. It obviously has no relation to human activities. The only explanation is underground volcanoes: we can notice that they are both emitting CO2 and causing warming. Of course, the eruption of a single Alaska-sized underground volcano under the Arctic sea would be sufficient to explain the melting of the Artic sea ice (which is now by the way recovering). And yet, we would never be able to detect that volcano. We should learn to be humble about how little we really know about Earth and its climate, and the secrets it hides in its interior.

Mole drill for exploring Earth's interior

Indeed, until we know what secrets lie below Earths surface, before we have sent expeditions into the depths of the planet, it would be futile and a pointless waste to try to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere by burning less fossil fuels. Futile! Pointless!

Joe Bastardi repeats my argument

2011-08-13T08:19:00.000-07:00

In a guest post at WUWT, meteorologist Joe Bastardi repeats the argument I made recently about how the recent changes in temperature and CO2 don't correlate and this shows that CO2 doesn't drive temperature, and hence temperature drives CO2. I showed this graph as evidence:

Bastardi shows this one, which is very similar:

Note that Bastardi has added a big blue arrow to show that temperatures have been going down the last 15 years.

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

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

Monckton in NZ TV

2011-08-11T05:24:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

Salby demolishes AGW theory

2011-08-08T12:16:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

Wow.

Wohohow!

Yippiyayayayay!

Wobedobedoboo!

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

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

Here are a couple of points we can discuss:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arctic Sea Ice Recovery

2011-08-07T10:45:00.000-07:00

The Arctic sea ice extent is now above what it was in the corresponding period in 2007 according to NSIDC. This means 4 years of a steady Arctic sea ice increase! The doomsayers are proven wrong as always. No need to worry about the polar bears!

The blue line shows the Arctic sea ice extent for 2011 (May-August) and the dashed line for 2007. By comparing 2011 to the year with the lowest extent (2007), NSIDC tries to give the impression that this year is very low as well. The black line is the average for ~~1997~~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.

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

Wood mashes Mashey

2011-08-07T08:12:00.000-07:00

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

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

One alarmist who has much in common with P T Barnum is John Mashey. I wrote about Mashey's shameless attacks against Edward Wegman, the worlds best statistician, last autumn. In his piece, Woods writes:

But let’s put aside these vacant thoughts and turn to some serious news. Science reports that retired computer scientist Dr. John Mashey is attempting to patch the tattered reputation of “hide the decline” Michael Mann, the climate scientist whose famous “hockey stick” chart shows exponentially increasing global temperatures in the near term. Mashey has been, as he puts it, “trying to take the offense” against global warming skeptics by flyspecking their publications. “You hope they make a mistake,” he says, and when they do, he pounces with demands that journals retract whole articles. Some journals indeed have. As Science puts it, “His critics say Mashey is more interested in destroying his foes than in debating the issues.” Professor Mann is extolling his efforts at “exploring the underbelly of climate denial.”

Trying to find errors is your opponents' publication: what kind of low life would sink so low? Mashey has shown his true colors (green, red, brown), and the innocent Wegman is now under investigation for plagiarism. We skeptics would never do anything so mean. We are honorable people! Remember Climategate!

In the second piece, NAS president Wood documents how the warmists try to silence dissenting voices and cover up scientific facts that undermine their position:

Mann himself has deployed nuisance lawsuits in a similar fashion. He has sued Tim Ball—a Canadian global-warming skeptic, an environmentalist, and former professor of geography—for libel for writing that Mann “should be in the State Pen, not Penn State,” for his role in Climategate. Mann also threatened a lawsuit against Minnesotans for Global Warming for a satiric YouTube video titled “Hide the Decline.”

Indeed. Instead of engaging in a scientific debate with Ball and Minnesotans for Global Warming, Mann just goes ahead and sues them. But that is because he cannot counter their rock-solid arguments. By thus attacking his strongest critics, Mann tries to make everybody else afraid and thereby he prevents an open and informed scientific debate. "Makin' up data the old hard way. Fudgin' the numbers day by day. Hiding the snow and the cold and a downward line. Hide the decline (hide the decline)." That video was so funny! And scientific! "Oh Climategate I think you have sealed your fate. I hope you do a lot of time, cuz what you did was such a crime."

Mashey and co-thug Coleman try to retaliate in a piece of their own in CHI:

Although we see this elsewhere and ignore it, we were surprised to find articles and comments by Wood in CHE that could be considered libelous. We value the academy for open discussion and seeking truth. We both take academic misconduct seriously and have filed formal, detailed misconduct complaints. Wood’s use of phrases like “tattered reputation,” “statistical trickery and suppression of discrepant data,” “Barnum-esque hokum,” and “academic dishonesty” are not things that credible people publish without showing expertise and evidence. As Christopher Hitchens has so accurately stated: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Much of what Wood writes falls under the category of assertion without evidence, counter to the principles of scholarly discourse.

This is utterly ridiculous and without any merit what-so-ever! Why would NAS president Wood want to libel anybody? He is not taking sides in the climate debate. He describes his honorable intentions as follows:

Is anthropogenic global warming (AGW) a valid scientific theory? Is it well supported by the empirical data or is it mostly an artifact of computer modeling? I don’t have answers to these questions. I stand, rather, on the side of those who favor rigorous scientific inquiry, transparency, and openness. I am not a climate scientist, but neither do I cede the whole matter of answering such questions to the designated experts. Good science doesn’t limit itself to the views of narrow-cast specialists. Valid observations, corrective criticism, competing hypotheses, and rigorous testing can and often do arise from other sources.

Manufactured indices and other units

2011-07-23T11:41:00.000-07:00

In the video above, Rush Limbaugh critisizes the use of the so-called "heat index", which inflates temperatures by adding the imagined effect of relative humidity. If the relative humidity is high, the heat index is higher than the actual temperature, and if it is low then is lower than the actual temperature. Rush says:

They’re playing games with us on this heat wave, again. Even Drudge, drudge getting sucked in here. Gonna be a 116 in Washington. No, it’s not. It’s going to be a 100, maybe 99. The heat index, manufactured by the government, they tell you what it feels like when you add the humidity in there.

By using the heat index, the government tries to make us believe that it is warmer than it actually is. The heat index is essentially a form of psy op, indendent to scare people so they will not oppose the new world governance.

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

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

Willie Soon - no burden for tax payers

2011-07-19T06:42:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

Morano mashes Muller

2011-04-04T12:30:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

Quote of the Millennium

2011-03-25T03:43:00.000-07:00

Over at Whats Up With Watts, I found the following wonderful quote from Australian arch alarmist Tim Flannery:

Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.

Reading that quote, any sane person has to ask himself: if it takes up to a thousand years for Earth to cool after our CO2 emissions, what is the bloody point of cutting those emissions? It simply doesn't make sense! It just has to be a scam! As Anthony Watts comments:

Crikey! So much for the “think of the grandchildren” argument used by Dr. James Hansen.

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

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

Nos ardere quercus

Update: also see Bishops Hill and Steven Goddard. And here is a cartoon by Josh:

And what the heck has felling trees got to do with diminishing forests?

Earth Hour Terror

2011-03-23T13:35:00.000-07:00

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

So what is the purpose with Earth Hour? How is turning off our lights going to stop climate change? The bed-wetting climate alarmists believe that carbon dioxide warms Earth so it must have something do do with reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Have the fools never taken a close look at a light bulb? This is what it looks like:

It has a hermetically sealed cover of glass! Whatever amounts of carbon dioxide is generated by the light bulb stays in the light bulb. It is not going to float out into the atmosphere. Just when you thought that this climate change hysteria couldn't get any sillier this comes along.

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

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

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

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

Luceat lux vestra

Ken Ring on CO2

2011-03-20T07:40:00.000-07:00

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

Rush Limbaugh on Japanese disaster

2011-03-17T14:03:00.000-07:00

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

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

2011-03-11T23:05:00.000-08:00

By cartoonist Josh, from WUWT

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

Mosher at WUWT reports:

“Sources confirm that a federal inspector has questioned Eugene Wahl and Wahl has confirmed that Mann asked him to delete emails. Wahl has also informed the inspector that he did delete emails as the result of this request.”

We thank this courageous source, probably the brave Senator Inhofe's office.

And Marc Morano:

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

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

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

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

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

Yet, it is comforting to see that the public is unimpressed by Romm's fit of rage. Romm's post only got 50 comments, whereas Mosher's WUWT post has received 490 comments when I'm writing this, so it is quite clear who to trust on this matter. I conclude by citing some of the insightful comments to Mosher's piece:

Tastes like pork I am told.
-
The house of cards will soon be coming down.
Kudos to all those stalwart individuals that have doggedly pursued this noble cause. I have never made a “charitable” donation that made more sense and gave better results than supporting this and other climate realist organizations.
Well done!
-
If Wahl admitted this… wait my brain is trying to understand why there are no criminal proceedings going on right now.
-
Nothing will happen. Orthodox Party members never get in trouble. Only heretics and truth-tellers get in trouble.
-
Penn State (and Penn State alumni) better realize that they are NOT too big for this cover-up to severely damage their reputation.

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

2011-03-06T11:42:00.000-08:00

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

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

Get sound effects & royalty free music at AudioMicro.

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

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

Persquere solum pullum

Alarmistic blogging climate scientist: 10 C climate sensitivity possible

2011-02-28T12:44:00.000-08:00

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

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

2011-02-27T04:58:00.000-08:00

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

Eco-Nazis - yes that is what they are!

2011-02-26T03:35:00.000-08:00

Eco-Nazi tree huggers in action! This tree swastika in Brandenburg was probaly planted in the 1930's. Proof that "green is brown!"

There is an excellent article in American Thinker by the renowned historian (or maybe journalist) Mark Musser that reveals The Nazi Origins of Apocalyptic Global Warming Theory! Musser reveals that one of the pioneers in catastrophic global warming theory was Guenther Schwab(1902-2006), an Austrian Nazi just like Hitler! Schwab wrote a fictional novel in 1958 with the title "Dance with the Devil" where he warned about imagined environmental disasters such as global warming. This was almost 50 years before Al’Gore invented the Apocalyptic Global Warming Theory in his movie “An Inconvenient Truth”. As I see it, Al’Gore simply copied the Nazi-ideas of Nazi-Schwab.
James Delingpole, who has never been afraid to call the eco-fascists by their right name, comments:

You’ll note from that “whoulda thunk?” that I am not altogether surprised by the Nazi connections with the green movement and AGW theory. That’s because, during my research for Watermelons, I discovered how intimately they were bound. The Nazi obsession with “Blut und Boden” (”Blood and Soil”) and the quest for Lebensraum did not die with Hitler in his bunker in 1945: in only slightly changed form they continue to permeate green ideology, in everything from the worship of all things “organic” and the rejection of GM, artificial fertilisers, chemicals (and all the other hideous methods by which we keep the Third World from starving) to the fixation held by so many environmentalists from the Prince of Wales to John Holdren that there simply isn’t enough space on the earth to house and feed us all and that something must be done about population. (The only real difference between the Thirties Nazis and their modern eco counterparts is that they were a bit more honest as to exactly HOW they were going to deal with this population “problem”).

Precisely! Let us also remember that Hitler was a vegetarian, just like many of the present-day environmentalists. And he had dogs. Indeed, the Nazis were very fond of animals.
Hence, people that are concerned about consequences of using pesticides and fertilizers and about over-population, and people that like nature and animals and eat vegetables, are all Nazi!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember: green is brown!

Josh about anthropogenic and natural CO2

2011-02-26T02:38:00.000-08:00

Over at James Delingpole's excellent science blog I found this fantastic cartoon by "Josh" (the guy who did the T-shirt that professor Curry was awarded at the Lisbon reconciliation meeting) explaining why human CO2 emissions are insignificant.

For the record, "Sir Paul" in the cartoon is the man who forced Delingpole to have intellectual intercourse in a BBC show about global warming. Sir Paul clearly didn't know who he was messing with!

Humungous US Funding of Evil and Corrupt IPCC Will Be Stopped!

2011-02-21T10:21:00.000-08:00

Stop the flow of money into the deep pockets of these guys (al'Gore and Pachauri)!

The US House of Representatives has voted with the figures 244 for and 179 votes against to stop funding the monumentally corrupt and thoroughly evil organization IPCC!
The US has been paying the enormous sum of $2.3 million millions, or $2.3 trillions, every year to the monstrous bureaucracy of the IPCC. This is roughly 1/6th of the entire US GDP, or 4 times the US military budget. These huge amounts have forced the US to borrow large sums from China, and the money has gone to an organization hell-bent on destroying the Western way of life. An organization fraught with waste and abuse, which cannot get even the most basic figures right (remember Himalaya-gate).
I have already warned about the danger of letting policy be influenced by science. Politicians are gullible and easily manipulated by scientists with a hidden and sinister agenda and an insatiable hunger for more and more grant money (or worse: the politicians themselves are part of the scam, like al’Gore). Finally, the House of Representatives has put down its foot. We can only hope that the Senate follows suit. Then we might finally end the reign of terror of the IPCC.
I will end this post with the immortal words of Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Missouri):

Scientists manipulated climate data, suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals, and researchers were asked to destroy emails, so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.
….
Mr. Chairman, if the families in my district have been able to tighten their belts, surely the federal government can do the same and stop funding an organization that is fraught with waste and abuse. My amendment simply says that no funds in this bill can go to the IPCC. This would save taxpayers millions of dollars this year and millions of dollars in years to come. In fact, the President has requested an additional $13 million in his fiscal 2012 budget request.
My constituents should not have to continue to foot the bill for an organization to keep producing corrupt findings that can be used as justification to impose a massive new energy tax on every American.

Corruptisima re publica plurimae leges

The Trickery Tricks of the Team

2011-02-16T11:58:00.000-08:00

There is no end to the tricks, deceits and duplicity of the Team when they are out to protect their lavish funding and to keep any critique against their incompetent frauds and tricks out of the scientific literature. We have recently seen two events where the typical pattern emerges.

First we have the reconciliatory meeting in lovely Lisbon, attended among other by the indomitable Steve McIntyre and the great peacemaker Judith Curry. The latter was very pleased to be awarded a T-shirt depicting a garbage can with "Climate Science" written on it:

But nobody from the Team turned up to this reconciliatory meeting intended to create friendship, understanding, trust, openness, confidence, good faith, mutual respect and appreciation and peaceful harmony between the different sides of the climate controversy. The Team had also used their powers of intimidation to prevent other climate researchers from attending. Yes, the Team returned this noble offer of peace and forgiveness, this olive branch from the innocent to the wicked, with a slap in the face. But it doesn’t stop there. Gavin Schmidt, the evil arch genius, declined by an email in which he very cleverly pretended to say that “the science is settled.” In an act of the noblest reconciliatory spirit and greatest openness and transparency, one of the organizers, the distinguished climate realist blogger Tallbloke, showed this email to Fred Pearce, who wrote about it in New Scientist. So far no surprises. But then Gavin Schmidt started screaming like a donkey when somebody steps on its toes, and claimed that he had said no such thing. And indeed, if one carefully reads Schmidt’s duplicitous response, he does not say so explicitly. It is rather hinted between the lines; this trick is apparent to any skillful interpreter of interpretations. Obviously, this was a trap set by Schmidt to make Tallbloke look stupid and dishonest. A most disgraceful act by Schmidt! A trick! A trick!

Then we have the sordid affair with the paper by O’Donnell, Condon and McIntyre which proved that the infamous paper about Antarctic warming was wrong. They used better methods and demonstrated that the alleged warming had a somewhat different pattern. This affair is becoming as great as Climategate:

One of the reviewers was Eric Steig, notorious team member and first author of the paper that was being criticized. He used his position as reviewer to delay the publication of the article by coming with a lot of objections and recommendations. As expert interpreter of interpretations and peer review process authority James Delingpole writes: 'Even in the monstrously corrupt world of “climate science” this was clearly a breach of protocol. Certainly, in no other scientific discipline would a reviewer with such a clear conflict of interest be invited to review a paper whose main purpose was to criticise one he’d written himself.'
In his first review, Steig wrote 88 pages of objections, while the original paper had only 8 pages! This is utter madness!
Steig also made it appear as if his three reviews were in total 88 pages long, when in reality he wrote only 24 pages, and O’Donnell, Condon and McIntyre wrote 64 pages in responses. Normally, a review for a scientific journal is a few lines (I have heard). Like “Good job, old boy”. Blog science is much superior: one can get hundreds of well-informed comments in just a couple of days. And their original submission was 45 pages (not 8). Shame on you, Steig! A trick!
Steig suggested in his reviews that O’Donnell, Condon and McIntyre should use a method (iridge) which he later criticized in a blog post. Well, at least he didn’t sufficiently warn them against the dangers of using such a method. It is clear that Steig planned this so he could ciriticize the paper.Shame on you again, Steig! A trick!
Finally, when O’Donnell in a reconciliatory spirit published the reviews and revealed that Steig was “Reviewer A” (as the latter had stupidly admitted it in a private exchange), he gets criticized for breaking the confidentiality of the review process. Are they not ashamed to try to hide their clandestine behavior behind a questionable notion of “confidentiality”? And then the Team tries to use this against O’Donnell! How dare they insinuate that O’Donnell has behaved disgracefully? What bottomless hypocrisy! What a nasty, evil trick!

It is obvious that Steig did everything he could to delay and corrupt the article by O’Donnell, Condon and McIntyre. This proves that the peer review system has been corrupted by the Team! But we climate realists must continue to strive for reconciliation which these duplicitous fools and trickery knaves! They spin and spin and trick and trick and the mad dance of the Team never ends! Mark my words: this is the final nail into the rotten coffin of the climate fraud!

Update: I just came up with the following excellent counter-argument to the claim that O'Donnell behaved unethically when he exposed Steig as Reviewer A. Imagine that islamic terrorists have hidden an atomic bomb in New York. They have revealed the location of the bomb and the code needed to disarm it in a review of one of your papers. You have previously told them that you will not expose their identity. What would you do? Respect "the confidentiality of the reviewing process" and do nothing and let millions of people die? Or tell the FBI about the location and code, and the identity of the evil terrorists? The global warming alarmists who support Steig would apparently have done the former. After all, to them nothing is more important than "the confidentiality of the reviewing process". To a true patriot, like O'Donnell and Jack Bauer, the second course of action would be obvious!

Delingpole Victim of Forced Intellectual Intercourse

2011-01-24T09:34:00.000-08:00

The Guardian reports about the next episode of the BBC TV show Horizon: Science Under Attack, in which the president of the Royal Society Sir Paul Nurse was supposed to interview the intrepid Telegraph journalist James Delingpole (picture), one of the world's most distinguished blog-experts on Climate Change alongside with Anthony Watts and myself. However, the interview turned into an intellectual rape when Nurse used his scientific weight to bear on Delingpole. Nurse, a Nobel Prize winner, asked Delingpole the following loaded question:

If a dear relative was suffering from a fatal disease, would you opt for the "consensus" treatment recommended by doctors, or advice to drink more orange juice offered by a fringe maverick quack?

Whereupon the poor James was speechless. This question was absolutely disgraceful! The BBC should be ashamed of themselves. They are trying to insinuate that a global warming realist is equivalent to a juice quack! A more relevant question would have been:

If a dear relative was suffering from a fatal disease, would you opt for the "consensus" treatment recommended by eco-fascist grant-grabbing bedwetting doctors hellbent on destroying Western civilisation, or advice to drink more orange juice offered by a British Lord who has already found a cure for HIV, MS and the Common Cold?

Shame on the BBC for exposing poor innocent James Delingpole to such massive cerebral abuse. He is just an innocent journalist who doesn't read scientific papers! They should have pitted him against somebody like George Moonbat instead.

In cauda venenum.

Advanced statistics with percent

2011-01-18T10:13:00.000-08:00

The alarmists claim that there is a consensus among scientists. Therefore, they always have to agree with each other. Nobody is allowed to have any opinions that diverge from what is commonly believed. Therefore, you never find any interesting discussions or lively and informed arguments among the warmists. They all just adhere to the IPCC dogma. They believe that disagreement is a sign of weakness, or heresy, and need to be suppressed at any cost.
Not so among us climate realists. We know the value of a critical discourse. We know that by criticizing each other and scrutinizing each other’s arguments, we can eventually get closer to the truth (and not surprisingly, we often find it where we thought it was to begin with). If we are proven to be wrong, we are not afraid to admit it, because we have intellectual integrity.
Dennis Ambler from the Science and Public Policy Institute, one of the world's leading centres for blog science, has recently released a report with the witty title Climate "Consensus" Opiate, The 97% Solution which criticizes the infamous and fraudulent paper by Doran and Zimmerman, two infamous ad-hominem activists, which spuriously claimed to prove that there was a consensus about global warming. They did so by a survey sent out to 10,157 scientists and got 3,146 responses. Among those, they arbitrarily classified 77 as “climate science specialists” (e.g. faithful).

The second question in the survey was:

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The SPPI comments:

This is the classic closed question, in that it implies mean global temperatures are being changed and someone must be responsible.
The response to this question was 75 specialists out of 77, so here we have our massive 97%.
It is disingenuous to now use the “climate scientists” as a new population sample size. The response figure of 3,146 is the figure against which the 75 out of 77 should be compared and in this case we get not 97% but just 2.38%.
The original number contacted was 10,157 and of those, 69% decided they didn’t want any part of it, but they were the original target population. When the figure of 75 believers is set against that number, we get a mere 0.73% of the scientists they contacted who agreed with their loaded questions. However a headline of “0.73% of climate scientists think that humans are affecting the climate” doesn’t quite have the same ring as 97% does it?

Percentages is one of the most complex parts of statistics, and it is quite easy for a person without proper statistical training to make mistakes. I’m afraid that my friends from SPPI have made one. They should have consulted somebody with expertise in statistics, like myself of Edward Wegman, to check their calculations. This is the problem in their calculations. They say that 75 climate scientists answered yes, and they say that 10,157 scientists were asked. 75 out of 10,157 gives 0.73%. But the climate scientists are not the same as all scientists. We need to know what all the other proper scientists answered as well, before we can calculate what percentage of them answered yes. If we read a bit further in the SPPI report, we find the number 82% for all proper scientists. This would indicate that 2759.72 scientists answered yes. One of them was apparently only 0.72 sure.
Most alarmists are completely mathematically illiterate, so they will not notice this little and innocent blunder. Nor would they understand it if somebody would point it out to them. Nonetheless, they would gleefully revel in this minor mistake if it came to their attention, and they would use it in their propaganda to divert attention from their own grotesque errors and frauds. They may even try to claim that this innocent little mistake constitute fraud (yes, they certainly can sink so low). Therefore, we should always strive to keep the highest possible standards in our blog science, and we should consult the best experts in statistics.
Thanks to blog science, this minor problem was discovered and corrected in a month from the release of the report. Blog science has once more proven its superiority.

Ab amicis honesta petamus.

Booker on climate change and evolution

2010-12-25T14:42:00.000-08:00

I recently wrote about Dr Tim Ball’s essay about Velikovsky and climate sceptics. That reminds me of another great essay I read almost two years ago, by Christopher Booker. It was about the bicentenary of Charles Darwin, author of The Origin of Species and the inventor of the theory of evolution. Booker wrote:

What is fascinating about the Darwinians is their inability to accept just how much they do not know. Armoured in their certainty that they have all the answers when they so obviously don’t, neo-Darwinians such as Richard Dawkins rest their beliefs just as much on an unscientific leap of faith as the ‘Creationists’ they so fanatically affect to despise. It is revealing how they dismissively try to equate all those scientists who argue for 'intelligent design' with Biblical fundamentalists, as their only way to cope with questions they cannot answer.
Something strikingly similar has been taking place over the belief that the world is dangerously warming, due to the rise in man-made CO2. For a time the believers in this theory seemed to have the evidence on their side, as CO2 levels and temperatures rose in apparent harmony. But lately all sorts of evidence has been put forward by serious scientists to suggest that this theory is seriously flawed, not least the fact that recently falling temperatures were not predicted by any of those computer models on which the advocates of global warming rest their beliefs.
It becomes increasingly obvious that, like the Darwinians, the warming supporters are so convinced by the simplicity of their theory that they are unable to recognise how much they do not know - and like the Darwinians their response has been to become ever more fanatically intolerant of anyone who dares question their dogma. This might not matter so much if they hadn’t, on the basis of their faith, persuaded so many of the world’s politicians to propose measures which threaten to inflict a real economic disaster on the world.

A very astute observation indeed! Personally, I’m not a creationist, and I find it vexing, outrageous, nefarious and disgraceful that the fanatical AGW-cultists dare to compare us climate sceptics to Bible-thumping fundamentalists. However, I believe in keeping an open mind, and to be honest the science of origins is far from settled. Both sides have good points, and it would be best for science if everybody could admit that: it is never good for science to solidify into rigid dogma enforced by a cruel and oppressive inquisition. And I do enjoy thumping the Bible once in a while, and if anybody has a problem with that, then it is their problem and not mine, and they will surely burn in hell!
Have you noticed that evolution used to be about the progression from lower to higher forms of life, but nowadays, they define it as “any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next”? In other words, any kind of change is evolution. If somebody with brown-haired parents is born with red hair (like my brother’s youngest child), it is “evolution”. Evolution has effectively become unfalsifiable. Does this sound familiar? “Global warming” and “climate change”? Need I say more? They used to call it “global warming” but since it is not warming anymore they have changed it to “climate change”. In addition, many evolutionists faked the data, cooked the books, boiled the spaghetti, like in the case of the infamous "Piltdown Man". That is just like Mann's "hide the decline". Indeed, the parallels are uncanny and legio!

Id quod circumiret, circumveniat.

What does Velikovsky and climate skeptics have in common?

2010-12-19T11:38:00.000-08:00

Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) was a free-thinking scientist that made many interesting discoveries: Noah's Flood was caused by Saturn entering a nova stage; Mercury caused the destruction of the Tower of Babel; Venus (ejected from Jupiter) caused the events in Exodus including the parting of the Red Sea, and also caused the sun to stand still when Joshua was fighting the Amorites at Gibeon (see picture below), and so on.

So what do Velikovsky and climate skeptics have in common? Dr Tim Ball (in the picture), world renowned climate scientist and one of the few who dare go against the Al Goreian priesthood, writes about this for Canada Free Press (mandatory reading). In short, Velikovsky challenged the prevalent scientific dogma, and the corrupt establishment tried to marginalize and ridicule him in the most horrible ways. Today, climate skeptics find themselves in precisely the same situation when they challenge the dogma of the AGW inquisition.

Dr Ball observes:

In the end Velikovsky succeeded because he passed the ultimate test of science; the ability to predict. More important, they were in contradiction to prevailing views. He made many and apparently none are incorrect to date. The interesting one was the temperature of Venus, which was almost double what the textbooks said. The same textbooks that incorrectly use Venus as an example of runaway CO2 induced Greenhouse Effect.

Failure of the University President to approve a conference on Velikovsky was symptomatic of the dogmatic, closed minds that pervade modern science. The few scientists involved with the AGW debacle deliberately exploited and practiced that condition. Their actions indicate they saw this as a battle, but it was against the truth and as Aeschylus said, “In war, truth is the first casualty.”

Just like Velikovsky and other great anti-dogma scientists like Erich von Däniken, Richard C. Hoagland and Kent Hovind, I'm sure that we climate skeptics one day will be victorious and the house of cards that is contemporary AGW "science" will fall apart and blow away like a house of cards hit by a low-flying planet.

Steteruntque sol et luna donec ulcisceretur se gens de inimicis suis nonne scriptum est hoc in libro Iustorum stetit itaque sol in medio caeli et non festinavit occumbere spatio unius diei.

Criminals illegally steal FOX email about AGW scam

2010-12-17T12:42:00.000-08:00

Image from Whats Up With That

Illegal and criminal hackers recently broke the law by illegally stealing the email above from Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon. The email was later displayed on the criminal blog "Climate Progress" ran by the offender and AGW activist Joe Romm. The email must have been illegally obtained either from Mr Sammon's mail account or illegally forwarded from one of the recipients to some criminal activists.
Anyhow, Sammon is perfectly correct to point out that whether it is getting colder or warmer is scientifically a very controversial issue (just like the citizenship of Obama), and it would be tantamount to communist propaganda to suggest otherwise. Indeed, all non-manipulated evidence unequivocally point to the imminent onset of a new ice age. For instance, large parts of Europe are presently covered by snow, and no "trick to hide the decline" can possibly hide that "travesty". This email proves that FOX truly is a fair and balanced network that embodies the highest journalistic and scientific standards. The activist-criminals surely have shot themselves in the foot with this illegally obtained weapon.

We can only hope that Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli can identify the culprits of this illegal and immoral email theft when he gets hold of the email correspondence of fugitive decline-hider Michael Mann.

The Lord Monckton censored at Cancun

2010-12-12T04:16:00.000-08:00

Photograph: Jenny Bates for the Guardian

Censorship rules in Cancun! The Lord Monckton was forced to leave the World Climate Summit lunch party at the Ritz Carlton hotel, reports the Guardian. The Lord Monckton had informed the other participants that man-made climate change was not happening, but this wasn't tolerated by the Hitler Jugend organizers of the event. Indeed, their mind-controlling zealotry went so far that they hadn't even invited the Lord Monckton in the first place.

It is evident that the alarmist eco-fascists are getting increasingly desperate as the AGW house of cards is falling apart! And they really have no manners!

Absentem laedit, qui cum ebrio litigat.

Greenland not so green in medieval times

2010-11-25T11:26:00.000-08:00

It has often been claimed by well-informed climate realists that Greenland was called that because it once was all green and covered with grass. Recent archaeological finds paint a different picture. The Danish blog Scientist Dr Viktor Dritthavn has made some remarkable discoveries which will overthrow the prevalent view of medieval Greenland as a lush meadow.
While surfing on the net, Dr Dritthavn found images that were claimed to be ruins of Viking-era farmsteads, but Dr Dritthavn recognized them for something else. They were ruins of mosques!

“The plans of the buildings were strikingly similar to plans of mosques”, comments Dr Dritthavn. “And what’s more – no shoes were found. There was not a single shoe visible in the images. If it was a Viking farmstead, that would be hard to explain. But Muslims always remove their shoes before entering into a mosque. Therefore, it must have been a mosque.”
This is what a mosque looks like. The similarity can hardly be a coincident.

The implications are staggering. Greenland was not colonized by Vikings, but by Arabs. They were previously thought to only have reached as far northwest as the Iberian Peninsula, but now we know that they continued their northwestern expansion all the way to Greenland. And if there were Arabs in Greenland, it couldn’t have been green with grass. Greenland must have been a desert, subject to the same hot and arid climate as the present-day Arabian Peninsula and Northern Africa. In other words, it must have been several tens of degrees warmer than today.
This means that the Medieval Warming period not only existed, but was considerably warmer than today. And yet civilization flourished during these times, only to go into a steep decline during the Little Ice Age when Eskimos hunted walrus and penguins in southern France and all scientific and technological development came to a grinding halt.
Not least importantly, this proves that McIntyre and Wegman were right and that Mann and Jones were wrong! Of course, the enforcers of the prevalent scientific dogma will do everything they can to put the lid on these new fantastic discoveries, but this is the era of blog science so they will not succeed!
So how can we explain the name Greenland, if it was a desert? That’s simple enough. Green is a holy colour in Islam. Many Islamist countries have green flags. The name Greenland is irrefutable proof of an Arab colonization (or possibly an Irish one, but the absence of bottles is evidence against that.)
Dr Dritthavn is now organizing an expedition to Greenland. “I have relied on Google maps for my research, but now I feel I need to be there in person”, he says. “I will search for camel remains frozen into the kilometre thick Greenland ice sheet, and they would be hard to find using Google maps. There are certain passages in the Kitab al-Azif manuscript by the medieval Arab scholar Abdul Alhazred that hint at camel caravans crossing the Greenland desert.”
We are looking forward to the day that Dr Dritthavn brings backs more evidence from the time when Greenland looked like this:
Picture taken by Luca Galuzzi - www.galuzzi.it

Who knows? Maybe he can even find the harem of some Greenlandish sheik buried in the ice.

Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant

Fun at WUWT

2010-11-18T11:04:00.000-08:00

There is a post at WUWT that is a real laugh. At first I thought it was for real, but it turned out it was a hilarious and spot-on parody of the warmists!
This piece literally had me falling off my horse with laughter:

Al Gore also hailed the paper as a milestone, writing in a press release, “All questions and skepticism should be ended at this point, the proof is in.” Gore declined to comment, aids saying he was too busy selling carbon offsets to himself.

As we all know, the eco-fascists could never come up with anything that funny. They completely lack a sense of humour. Al Gore is reported to have accidentally killed several people from boredom when he once tried to make a joke! It was a most painful death.
Thinking about it, this lack of a sense of humour appears to be a common trait in people I disagree with on some point or another: environmentalists, communists, neighbours, people that don't like sausages, the English, the French, bicyclists, women (in particular my ex wife), children, and some categories that it would be too politically incorrect to mention here. They never appreciate a good laugh!

Here is another good laugh, from my famous series of Nazi pictures with funny captions.

All our bombz are made from rezyclable material. We mustn't harm the environment!

Another vicious attack on Wegman

2010-11-17T12:43:00.000-08:00

Another vicious attack against professor Edward Wegman, the world’s foremost statistician, has been launched by the blog with the pornographically-sounding name “Deep Climate”. Professor Wegman was behind the report that convincingly demonstrated that Michael Mann’s infamous hockey-stick was broken.
Apparently, the warmists couldn’t find any pretence for attacking professor Wegman personally. Nor were they able to produce any incriminating evidence in professor Wegman’s email correspondence – they have probably not even been able to procure said email correspondence! So instead, the cowards resort to attacking professor Wegman’s report! It is absolutely disgusting.
The disgraceful attack appears to have two prongs. First, Deep Climate claims that professor Wegman, instead of actually doing his own investigation of the ability to reproduce hockey-sticks from red (communist) noise, just copied original hockey-stick breakers McIntyre and McKitrick without really understanding what was going on. This is of course utterly ridiculous: in order to reproduce a scientific result one obviously need to have exactly the same data and code. Otherwise, one might get the wrong result. Second, Deep Climate claims that the code of McIntyre and McKitrick selected those 1% of graphs that looked most like a hockey-stick (had the most pronounced blades), instead of selecting them randomly from all those generated. Again, this is an utterly ridiculous complaint, illustrating Deep Climate’s complete lack of understanding of statistics and sports. After all, it is called the “hockey-stick graph”. With a smaller blade, it would look more like a golf club (unlike ice-hockey golf is a noble and manly sport, free of poorly disguised homo-eroticism).
One also has to ask oneself what is the reason for this asinine and manic obsession with some arcane issues in a 5-year old report. Don’t the warmists have anything new to offer? It really seems demented! But it is probably intended as a diversion from the defining issue in the climate debate: the use of short-centred PCs in the hockey-stick paper from 1998!

Circumornatae ut similitudo templi.

The Windmill Mafia in Corleone

2010-11-15T12:30:00.000-08:00

The Mafia in Sicily has infiltrated the windmill industry, creaming off millions of eco-euros from both the Italian government and the European Union reports The Telegraph. Yes, that is true: organized crime is moving into the renewable energy sector. Windmills are being built in Corleone, by the Mafia. The Eco-mobsters, the green thugs! Do you hear that, tree-huggers and eco-hippies? This really makes me angry. Bloody windmills, bloody wind power. If you get your power from a wind farm, you are literally pouring your money into the pockets of the Godfather! It is absolutely disgusting. Windpower is fundamentally corrupt. And what is it going to be next? Will violence, oppression, dictatorships, terrorism and war follow in the tracks of the heavily subsidized wind-power sector? Surely the answer is "yes".
Did I say how outrageous I find this? How much this makes me hate wind power? It is absolutely revolting.

Say “No” to wind power. There is literally blood blowing around the rotors of those windmills. Say "No" to criminality, violence and oppression! Say "Yes" to good old honest oil instead! That is the only truely moral choice!

Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit.

160 years of cooling

2010-11-12T11:00:00.000-08:00

Over at WUWT, guest blogger David Whitehouse from the Global Warming Policy Foundation research institute has a very insightful post about the recent lack of global warming. However, it is not only the last decade or two that has seen no warming. As a matter of fact, there has been no warming for the last 160 years. On the contrary, there has been a number of cooling episodes. Consider the following graph showing the global temperature according to the unadjusted HadCRUT3 series (from Wood for Trees). You can click on the graph to enlarge it.

This graph shows the global temperaure as a red curve, and a number of trends as straight lines of different lengths. These different trends are for various periods: 1850-1865, 1865-1875, 1875-1915, 1915-1920, 1920-1925, 1925-1930, 1930-1935, 1935-1980, 1980-1988, 1988-1995, 1995-june 1997, july 1997-2003, and 2003-2010. And every single one of them is negative. These trends together cover the entire period from 1850 to 2010, that is 160 years, and each of the trends shows a cooling. In many cases, it is a matter of the very strong cooling, and in a few cases a more modest cooling. This means that this entire period of 160 years it has been cooling.

Looking at the red curve, it might appear to the casual observer that in spite of all these negative trends, the global temperature has actually gone up. However, that is but an illusion created by the coincidence that each trend segment starts at a somewhat higher point than the previous trend segment. Hence, the apparent warming does not really exist. It is just a trick of the eye, which disappears when the data is subject to rigorous statistical analysis.

Some warmists may object and say that we should have computed the trend for the entire period. To that I respond: that is a really big cherry you are trying to pick there, Mister! Anyhow, such a long trend has no scientific meaning - it is but a line drawn by a ruler, a trick to hide the decline. And when I say that, I'm being awfully charitable.

So increasing levels of CO2 don’t cause increasing temperatures. How many negative counterexamples of a theory does it take to falsify it?

Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

Curry agrees with me

2010-11-07T10:47:00.000-08:00

Judith Curry, former email-deleting arch-witch of the AGW cult and now a victim of witch-hunts (the bad kind) from the AGW high priests since she decided to leave the sinking ship of the AGW dogma after the final nail has been hammered into it, suggests the following truce between the bed-wetting eco-fascists and the climate skeptics (aka realists):

If someone presents research that you disagree with, either ignore it or rebut it, in the blogosphere or journal publication if the research is published.

Attack the argument, not the person. No ad hominem attacks and no appeal to motive attacks. No argumentum ad populum.

Do not use science to fight political battles

Rediscover the joy of science, with debate as the spice of scientific discourse.

Amnesty for war crimes on both sides (that fall short of formal research misconduct)

Good suggestions, Judith. As all my readers know, I am a distinguished bridge builder myself, and I am willing to negotiate with you.

I already ignore practially all so-called "research" coming from the high priests of the AGW dogma. Garbage in - garbage inbetween - garbage out!

And we must surely put an end to all these ad hominem/populum attacks from the ugly stinking AGW fanatics.

I especially agree about “Do not use science to fight political battles”. I wrote a very thoughtfull post about that myself a week ago (maybe you read it). It is paramount that we protect policy from the corrupting influence of science, just as it is paramount that we protect businesses and markets from the corrupting influence of policy.

But I disagree about the last point, though. Instead, I agree with Dr Marc Morano: the AGW dogmatists should be kicked while they are down and then publicly flogged. Only after that, we can have a truce like civilized people.

Quod cum vidisset Ham, pater Chanaan, verenda scilicet patris sui esse nuda, nuntiavit duobus fratribus suis foras.

Keeping Science Out of the Political Process

2010-10-30T00:41:00.000-07:00

Scientific American has an online survey about the climate issue which has produced some very interesting results, which have upset the bedwetting liberal establishment.

To the question “Which policy options do you support?”, 65% of respondents have answered “keeping science out of the political process”. These respondents are very wise! Science is good in certain places, and bad in others.

These are places where science is good and can help humanity a lot:

Industry, e.g. inventing flying cars.
Military, e.g. inventing flying tanks.
Museums, e.g. assembling dinosaur skeletons.
Michael Crichton’s books and movies (Jurassic Park, State of Fear etc)

But these are places where science is bad and can do great harm to humanity:

Policy, e.g. worldwide DDT ban.
Al Gore’s books and movies (An Inconvenient Truth).

So why is science bad in policy? As experience has shown, science in policy usually results in:

Regulations
Taxes
World governance.

So it should be obvious to any freedom- and prosperity-loving person that we need to keep science out of policy. Nowhere else is it as blatantly obvious as in the case of the alleged climate change.
You see, science is useful if the scientists are ordered to do something useful, like inventing the atom bomb (one of the great master-pieces of creative capitalism). So I’m all for science, yes I’m very pro-science as you all know, when science is used the right way and not the left way.
However, the scientists not working for the captains of industry and war are in general a naïve bunch of leftist day-dreamers who don’t understand the complexities of the real world outside their labs. They will make things up in order to get more fat grants and live in luxury on the tax-payers’ expense. They are activists, trouble-makes, meddlers in peoples’ lives.
A case in point: quantum mechanics – completely useless and nobody understands it. It’s just a lot of spin. How dare they tell me whether I can poison my cat or not! It is preposterous!
Therefore, this kind of scientists cannot be trusted. They will use their fancy titles and their perceived authority to try to influence the gullible masses and to pursue their feverish dreams of eco-communism. It will just end up as in Stalinist Russia where Dr Lysenko’s mad science ideas caused millions to starve to death!
Fortunately, there are many politicians that have realized what they are up against, and have taken a brave stand against the corrupting influence of science, such as Republican tea-party senate candidate Christine O'Donnell.
As retired House Republican Sherwood Boehlert (himself a fanatic eco-fascist) says about these open-minded climate-realistic politicians: “They haven't been exposed to the science all that much.” And a good thing is that! Then they can do what is best for humanity and prosperity, instead of following the leash of the corrupt and power-drunk scientific establishment.
Science is a wonderful thing, but whenever I hear the words “science says”, I reach for my Luger. No smart-ass scientists are going to tell me what I can or cannot do!

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum.

Bonus: Australian journalist Tim Blair writes that Al’Gore is a fat, pompous, greedy, horny, envious, angry, and lazy moron! A must for the well-informed reader!

Happy Climate Fools Day!

2010-10-27T07:06:00.000-07:00

Today is Climate Fools Day - the day when we laugh extra hard at how incredibly stupid and ingorant and ugly and narrow-minded and bed-wetting the climate fascists are!

Ha ha ha ha!

And today, we celebrate the superiority of Post-Normal Blog Science to any other epistemic system ever conceived by the human mind, including Boring Old Academic Science with its dusty old tomes and grimy old test tubes and fat grants from tax-payers' money! I mean, just look at this humble blog you have in front of you. It is something of an understatement to say that this blog has done more for progressing climate science than the whole of CRU during their entire existence. Blog Science is the future! And it is cheaper for the tax-payers too!

Infinitus est numerus stultorum

(The funny picture is from WUWT).

Secret climate conspiracy meeting in Lisbon

2010-10-24T09:00:00.000-07:00

The always interesting new blog Whats Up With Watts has a most disturbing revelation about a "secret" symposium of paleoclimatologists (ie people that fake historical climate data). The symposium was clandestinely advertised on a well-hidden web site, so it is apparent that the organizers wanted to hide the fact that the meeting was secret (in other words, the meeting was secretly secret). However, the meeting was not reported in any major media, and that is highly unusual for a scientific event. In addition, the symposium took place in the largely unknown country of Portugal, in the well-concealed city of Lisbon (once a common meeting-place for spies) in September (a month favoured by communists). Indeed, something is very fishy here. To conclude that, it suffices to look at the elaborate and multi-layered webs of deception and subterfuge that were spun by twisted minds in dark chambers to conceal what was going on at this event.
The list of participants is even more suspicious, with Team members such as Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Raymond Bradley and Jonathan Overpeck. It is probably no coincident that all these Teamsters turned up at the symposium. They were certainly up to no good! I bet the main point on the agenda was how "to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". And were was the suspiciously absent Keith Briffa? What strings was he pulling; behind what pines was he hiding?
On the Symposium web page, one can read:

We propose to revisit the MCA/MWP assimilating widespread and continuous paleoclimatic evidence in a homogeneous way and scale them against recent measured temperatures to allow a meaningful quantitative comparison against the 20th-century pace and magnitude of warming. It is the goal of the organizers to focus attention on this topic, so that the latest results will be considered in the next (fifth) assessment report of the IPCC.

Note the words: "assimilating", "homogeneous", "scale", "quantitative". This all means that they want to manipulate and massage and trick and fudge the data so it shows the desired result (i.e. world governance). And why did they bring up the 5th AR of the ICCCP? What new frauds are they planning this time? What goes on behind the curtains when the Teamsters and their accomplices scheme in the dark back alleys of Lisbon, where even the pick-pockets and harbor prostitutes do not dare to tread? We know that for the First AR, the paleoclimatologist faked a temperature graph which looked like a sickle (symbol of communism). Then for the Third AR, they decided to get rid of the fraudulent sickle graph (did they suspect that the game was up?) and replace it with the equally fraudulent Hockey Stick graph (the Soviet Union had a very successful hockey team). What will the next graph be like? An ice-pick, like the one that was used to murder Trotsky on the orders of Stalin? Clearly they have learned nothing about ethics or how to conceal their intentions.

One thing that we can be certain about, though, is that this Symposium cost the tax-payers in many countries huge amounts of money - money that otherwise could have been used to help starving children. The participants most likely traveled in their private jet planes, and stayed at the most luxurious hotels that the decadent city of Lisbon can offer. We have reasons to believe that the Symposium Banquet offered fried dormice, nightingale tongues and peacock brains, all washed down with copious amounts of Chateau d'Yquem. And what purpose had all the beautiful escort ladies that we also suspect were there? Are we to believe that they were interested in "Coral Records of central tropical Pacific temperature & hydrology during the Medieval Climate Anomaly"? What was that white stuff that I bet was on the team-members' brown noses? Portugal is known for having a very liberal drug legislation. Indeed, it seems like these people are more interested in getting stuffed, laid and high than in doing science. And in order to continue this decadent lifestyle, they need to keep the grant money flowing into their large pockets. And of course, they want to deny the rest of humanity their jet-set life style. They’ve already shown the nefarious depths to which they will stoop and the pressure to keep this charade going has to be immense. Make no mistake, AGW is a big time industry and the investors are not going to give up their investment easy, if ever.

So how can we uncover the truth about this Symposium? We must send FOI-requests to those involved, and then publicize the e-mails (which we obtained in some manner) where they discuss how they can avoid those FOI-requests while stupidly revealing details of their hidden tricks and frauds. We must have hearings in Congress with McIntyre, and we must address this issue on every Climate blog on the internets! The truth must come out!

Professor announces he would have resigned from Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences

2010-10-20T20:00:00.000-07:00

Last week, the world was shocked and awed when Emeritus Professor Harold Lewis resigned from the American Physics Society because of their anti-scientific position regarding the global warming scam. This week, another prominent scientist, Royal Professor Claes Johnson from the Royal Institute for Technology in Stockholm, Sweden, dropped another daisy cutter on the climate junta when he announced that he would have resigned from Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences, had he only been a member, which he should have been if there only had been some justice in the world. Professor Johnson’s hypothetical resignation is a great loss to the Academy, as well as a great embarrassment. The Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences used to be famous for selecting the winners of the Nobel Prizes in the physical, chemical and medical sciences every year (see picture), but after Professor Johnson’s hypothetical resignation, those Prizes have been seriously devalued. The question is whether anybody really would want them anymore. Will the Swedish king really want to continue participating in the award ceremony after this scandal? And how many more non-members will resign from the Academy, after Professor Johnson has set the snowball rolling?
So what caused Professor Johnson to take the desperate step of leaving (had he been a member) a prestigious and influential position in the Academy? Professor Johnson is objecting to the Academy’s endorsement of the fully unscientific and unproven concept of a fictional “green-house effect”, which is the foundation of the entire AGW-scam (a matter on which he recently expressed disagreement with the Lord Monckton himself, who is for once seriously at fault). The Academy has forever disgraced itself by supporting such nonsense and superstition! Professor Johnson writes:

I don't want to be member of such an Academy. Is there really nobody among the 175 [real members] who has similar hesitations?

Besides Claes Johnson, will enough members and non-members take a stand against the Lysenkonistic corruption that got its hold on the organisation, so that it can recover some of the respect it had before this ignominy? Or will future Nobel prizes have no more value than something you find in a cereal box?

I want to personally contribute to fighting the corruption of the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences. Although I am not formally eligible for a membership in that organisation, there is something else I can do in spite of a considerable personal cost:

I hereby announce that if I had been awarded the Nobel Prize by the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences, then I would return it!

Corruptio optimi pessima

Great Scandal in First IPCC report

2010-10-18T06:53:00.000-07:00

All well-informed people must have heard of the notorious so-called Hockey Stick graph by the equally notorious Michael Mann and his accomplices. An alleged attempt to reconstruct northern hemisphere temperatures during the last millennium, it featured prominently in the third IPCC report, published in 2001. Its inclusion in that report is considered to be one of the greatest scientific scandals ever.
But there is an ever greater scandal that is waiting to have its story told. It concerns the first IPCC report, published in 1990. This report features another millennial temperature reconstruction (below).

This graph is commonly referred to as the “Sickle graph” because of its sickle-like shape (compare to the picture below).

Note that the sickle is a commonly used symbol for communism.

The “Sickle graph” is based on the work of Hubert Lamb, who also is the founder of the notorious Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, of Climate Gate infamy (hardly a mere coincident). And if one investigates the origin of the graph, it turns out that it is not at all global, as claimed by the IPCC, but merely covers Central England!
This was in 1990, which was much closer to the medieval period than 2010 (ie the present year), and yet this was the best they could do. A crudely drawn graph for Central England (loaded with communist symbolism), and not even calibrated against present temperatures! Then one can only imagine how much worse our knowledge of medieval temperatures must be today, twenty years later.
Do you all see now what a terrible fraud this is? And the fraud has been successful: even many skeptics unknowingly use this disgraceful and discredited graph, a cruel mockery of everything that is good and pure in science! It is utterly unacceptable. Don’t let the alarmists keep this outrageousity buried any longer. After all, this is in the primary IPCC report – the most important of them all. This scandal will bring down the IPCC once and for all, and put an end to its reign of terror. And in particular, Bert Bolin must immediately resign as the first IPCC chair!

All skeptical bloggers must write about this scam of unprecedented proportions! Anthony Whats, Steve McIntyre – you must immediately help me to let the entire world know! Professor Wegman must immediately start a new investigation, and congressman Joe Barton must commission it!

My dear fellow skeptics, pit bulls for truth: this time we surely have the IPCC by the balls, and we will not let go!

Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi

I'm really angry with the APS!

2010-10-15T10:25:00.000-07:00

I recently wrote about Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, who sent a letter of resignation to the American Physical Society (APS) because they support the AGW fraud. Now the APS has responded, and as expected it is a vile pile of ad hominem and grotesque attempts to smear Dr. Lewis. For instance, they write:

There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain.

"There is no truth..."? Are they trying to imply that Dr. Lewis is some hoary and senile old geezer who lives in a fantasy world of conspiracy theories, and who cannot tell fact from fiction? That is outrageous! How dare they! This kind of vicious ad hominem attack is so typical of the eco-fascists when they have theirs backs against the wall! But his time the wall will come tumbling down all over them!

I got so upset when I read this malicious attack against a great mind, that I immediately went to the APS web site and signed up for a life membership (using a fake name, so I wouldn't end up on any blacklist). Then I sat down and wrote the following letter of resignation to the APS!

Dear APS,
I have a life membership in your organisation, but now I have had enough of your ANTI-SCIENTIFIC FRAUDS! Global warming is a BIG SCAM to get more MONEY from the public to line your FAT POCKETS! How dare you SMEAR the venerable Dr. Harold Lewis with your FILTHY LIES and DIRTY AD HONIMEM ATTACKS! You are a disgrace to science and to humanity and a BUNCH OF COMMUNISTS! You should not call yourself APS - you should instead be named APES! Therefore, I hereby RESIGN my LIFE MEBERSHIP, you PIG-HEADED MORONS! Do not contact me again!

Yours truly
Dr Albert Einstein, Geneva

That should really teach them. Indeed, if everybody would do the same as I did, the APS would soon collapse like a house of cards from all resignations!

Harold Lewis and some noble friends have also written a devastating response to the APS at the prestigious blog Whats Up With Watt. And let's not forget what ~~Dr.~~ Anthony Watts wrote about Dr. Lewis's resignation letter:

It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.

I would add: you can also post it in a lot of other places. I have for instance today made 26 book reviews at Amazon which are copies of Lewis's resignation letter, including for the #1 best-seller "The Heroes of Olympus, Book One: The Lost Hero".
In that way, I hope a lot of people will read it before the infamous Amazon censorship strikes again!

Update! The scientific greatness of Harold Lewis is proven by the fact that he since October 13 even has his own Wikipedia entry! (Which of course the AGW censors tried to remove! Bastards!)

Ne sutor supra crepidam.

Historical moment: Emeritus Professor single-handedly destroys AGW dogma

2010-10-13T07:35:00.000-07:00

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has sent a letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, who is the President of the American Physical Society. By sending this momentous letter, Harold Lewis has single-handedly destroyed the towering pile of pseudo-science and religion that goes under the name "the AGW dogma". Fellow blogger Anthony Watts writes thus:

"This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science."

Indeed, Harold Lewis's letter will prove just as important in the history of science as Martin Luther's 95 theses. This passage is particularly significant:

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare.

And this one:

In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

As an Emeritus Professor, Harold Lewis can speak openly, unlike the thousands and thousands of scientists who are slaves under Mammon (i.e. government-funded research grants). His venerable age assures his wisdom and his uncorruptability. Just like Martin Luther saved us from the oppression and heresies of the Catholic Church and its evil Pope, Hal Lewis has saved us all from the oppression and heresies of the Global Warming Church and its fat and evil Al'Gore. The great AGW fraud is now collapsing in front of our very eyes, just like the Vatican once did!
Remember: it takes thousands of professors to build a scientific fraud-theory, but it only takes one to overthrow it.

Indeed, Harold Lewis's letter will prove just as important in the history of science as when Moses himself overthrew the Golden Calf. Yes, it is certainly not an overstatement to compare Harold Lewis to Moses. Or maybe David who single-handedly slew the Philistine giant Goliath with a stone from his sling.

recesserunt cito de via quam ostendisti eis feceruntque sibi vitulum conflatilem et adoraverunt atque immolantes ei hostias dixerunt isti sunt dii tui Israhel qui te eduxerunt de terra Aegypti

Baseless plagiarism accusations against Hockey Stick slayer Wegman

2010-10-10T11:48:00.000-07:00

In the past few months we have seen a number of amateurish attempts to counter skeptical arguments that gained traction in what public space there is for matters climatic and anti-climactic. Today we get introduced to John Mashey’s attempt to smear Edward Wegman and reclaim the Hockey Stick for further usage. It’s definitely anti-climactic.
John Mashey says that Wegman plagiarised material in his report to Congress.This is odd. Wegman is not a climate scientist. He is a statistician. The material Mashey alleges Wegman stole comes from Raymond Bradley, who has since apparently filed an official complaint with George Mason University. Is Mashey accusing Wegman of falsely representing himself as an expert in climate science? Is his intent to use as intellectual property ideas generated by Bradley for his own profit?
Just because two texts are a bit similar, it doesn't mean that one author has plagiarized the other. Sometimes different people just happen to write the same thing.
This whole affair is just a dirty and shameful attempt to smear an honest man who just did his job (i.e. to demolish the infamous Hockey Stick and reveal the fraud of Mann and his accomplishes). The warmo-fascists are really panicking if they try such desperate ad hominem tactics! What will their next step be? Stealing Wegman’s emails and making them public? Accusing climate skeptics of being nazis? Exploding skeptic children by pressing red buttons?
Climategate had a huge impact on public opinion regarding the probity of some of the scientists involved. The leaked emails clearly showed bad and bullying behaviour that left a stench in any honest reader’s nostrils. This new Mashey-gate smells just as bad! And John Mashey’s obsession with the Wegman report just doesn’t seem very healthy. It is just a conspiracy theory run amok! And do the alarmist really think that they can demolish the skeptic's strong position by an alleged case of plagiarism? It is utterly ridiculous!

Over at WUWT, Tom Fuller has a must-read post about this sordid affair.

And now something different: another Nazi image with a witty caption:

“Scheisse, who came up with the stupid idea of running our tanks on solar power in the middle of the Russian winter?”

The nazi-alarmist "no pressure" nazi-plan of annihilation

2010-10-08T11:27:00.000-07:00

Dear readers,
I must admit that after first watching the awful "No pressure" nazi-video, I jumped a bit too fast to the conclusion that the eco-nazis were literally going to blow up their opponents by pressing on red nazi-buttons. After further reflection I have come to the conclusion that the nazi-video was intended to be interpreted symbolically. After all, nazi-exploding your opponents by pressing red nazi-buttons seems like a quite difficult thing to do, and can hardly be seen as a realistic nazi-plan. The red nazi-buttons and explosions are merely symbols for something else, namely the complete physical destruction of all AGW skeptics by any violent and painful nazi-means that seems expedient to the murderous eco-nazis.
I also realise that I have not written nearly enough about this important subject (my precautionary diet on pork and single malt whisky has made me a bit indisposed). This means that I'm far behind e.g. Dr James Delingpole, who has already written 9 posts (and counting) about this momentous event on his Telegraph News Blog.

With the dear James's implicit permission, I'm here reproducing some of his nazi-pictures with very witty captions.

"Und Kinder you vill never guess what happens next...."

Herr Curtis congratulates the 10:10 team on a job well done

And here is one of my own:
"You muzt all reduze your carbon footprint..."

Some people have been using the term "Splatter-gate" to signify this event, but personally I prefer "Nazi-gate". The nazi-people behind the nazi-movie, as well as every-nazi-body that sympathises with them on any kind of nazi-issue, have revealed their total nazi-ness and fanatical terror-fascism for the whole world to see. They are literally drenched in the blood and gore of the innocent from head to toes, and an ill wind of ruthless nazi-oppression and genocidal murder-madness blows wherever they go. They nazi-made their nazi-video to show everbody what will happen to anybody that dares to stand up against their fanatical "Operation Barbarossa" of world conquest and enslavement under their fascist nazi-rule. They intend to bin-Laden-terrorize the whole world with their Pol-Pot-murderous threats and nazi-plans, and their nazi-inquisition will Hunnishly torture and Djingis-Kahn-destroy all opposition, and just anybody that their Gestapo-investigators merely suspect in their Stalinesque paranoia. Their mafia-like cruelty and blood thirst know no bounds, and their eco-fundamentalist Taliban zealotry is limitless. These hordes of nazi-vandals and fascist-barbarians want to destroy civilization and turn us all into mindless communist-slaves on their datjas and in their mosques, and they laugh like Beria at all the pain and suffering they so eagerly cause.
The nazi-nazists are becoming increasingly more desperate since the Great Climategate Scandal. This insane plan of annihilation is a logical next step after their failed attempts to "hide the decline" and "get rid of the Medival Warming Period". These are people with very sick minds! They are evil beyond your worst nightmares! Beware, everybody, beware!

Important message: If you follow my previous advice of sleeping with tin foil wrapped around your head, please make holes for breathing.

Update: I want to clarify that I think that the ad-hominem-throwing eco-nazis are comparable to the Nazis of WWII.

Video detected: Warmists blow up realists in violent ad hominem attacks!

2010-10-05T09:37:00.000-07:00

An on-line video has been discovered which reveals the terrible plans of the warmists to eliminate anybody that questions their AGW dogma. This is far worse that the Spanish Inquisition!

As Lubos Motl, always a bulwark of sanity and rationality against the mouth-foaming lunacy of the eco-fascists, comments:

Is there any exaggeration in the movie at all? Maybe, the climate alarmists really want to scare the ordinary people to death - make them think that they will be killed if they openly display the skepticism. What will you do, the ordinary people? Are you scared? Well, believe me, children would surely be scared.
...
Jamie Glover, a boy who was the first male to explode in the video, was told that he had to be sacrificed to save the world. What did he say afterwards?

Jamie Glover, the child-actor who plays the part of Philip and gets blown up, has similarly few qualms: "I was very happy to get blown up to save the world." The public reaction to the film will be fascinating - please add yours below.

You see that there's no qualitative difference in their methods of brainwashing of the children between the greens and the conventional Islamic jidhadists. They're ready to sacrifice their life for the "highest value". Compare Jamie's answer with the Arabic hit song, "When We Die As Martyrs".

So what can we climate realists do to protect us from this mad plan of annihilation? For starters, we can observe that the victims were made exploding by something planted inside their bodies. Thus, we climate realists and martyrs for Truth must prevent the alarmists from putting anything inside our body cavities. We can achieve this by taking the following precautionary steps:

Do not eat anything cooked by an alarmist. To be on the safe side, only eat meat because alarmists don't like to cook meat.

Do not have any sexual intercourse with any alarmist, in particular not involving any kinds of "toys" that can be inserted into any of your orifices.

Make sure to protect yourself while you are sleeping, lest the alarmists sneak into your bed room and put explosives in your mouth. I recommend covering your face in tin foil. It makes a noise when the alarmists try to remove it.

Do not visit alarmist hospitals and medical clinics. In particular, avoid surgery.

Do not visit alarmist dentists. They can hide explosives in the caveties of your teeth!

Avoid children. They can be brain-washed by the warmists to become living bombs!

Always bear arms, in case some psycho warmists attack you and try to force-feed you with a secret bomb!

To be really on the safe side from the insanity of the bat-shit crazy alarmists, we climate realists should all do like the hero John Galt in Atlas Shrugged and escape to a hidden valley where we can live a free life. There we can invent new and fantastic combustion engines and discover new ways to use oil and coal. And meanwhile the ecosuckers that remain in the outside world can mess things up as much as they wish, until they realise their mistakes and start begging on their bare knees for us to come back and lead them in order to save them. "You were right and we were wrong", they will cry. "Please help us!" And then I'm going to tell them: "Ecosuckers, you do not deserve to be rescued." And then they come back again and I tell them: "Ecosuckers, you still do not deserve to be rescued." And when they come back the third time and really crawl in the dirt and weep and cry like bed wetting babies, I tell them: "OK, I will restore prosperity and freedom and democracy, but only if you all promise to do exactly as I tell you and to obey me always and forever." Meanwhile, I have bought all the oil wells and coal mines in the world after the ecosuckers closed them down, and now they have to pay dearly for oil and coal so they don't forget how wrong they were. As the next ice age has started by then, due to oscillations in the iron core of the sun, they will need a lot of oil and coal to stay warm. Their stupid solar panels and wind mills would not work any more!

Gloriosum est iniurias oblivisci.

Sudden cooling in 1990's discovered!

2010-09-26T06:47:00.000-07:00

Dear readers, today I will publish a graph which is probably the most important graph ever published here.
Consider the typical temperature anomaly graph that the warmist establishment publishes, like this one from NASA.

As you can see, we have an apparent strong warming in the 1990s. Was that because Earth was actually getting warmer during the 1990s?

No, maybe not at all. Now consider the following graph by fearless hockey stick slayer McKitrick, which shows that in the 1990s two things happended.

First, the number of weather stations was dramatically reduced (diamond line). Most of the disappeared stations were in the former Soviet Union, China, Africa and South America. Second, the measured average global temperature went up by 2.5 degrees Celsius (red bars). Note that the measured average temperature in the graph is the unweighted average value of all the weather stations: no “gridding” or other artificial means for manipulating and massageing the data have been used. It’s just the weather station data as they are.

Nobody in his right mind can believe that it actually got 2.5 degrees warmer in one year. Hence, the 2.5 degree must be an artefact of the dramatic and mysterious disappearance of all these thousands of weather stations. Of course, that artefact will inflate the global average temperature, and as we can see in the topmost graph, the global average temperature increased during the 1990’s. It appears that the reduction of the number of stations has not been corrected for. This is quite typical. The warmists from NASA, CRU etc are all too happy to apply a lot of phony corrections upwards, but when it comes to downwards corrections they are not so keen. It is a monumental scandal of enormous proportions that this most needed correction has not been done.
That is until now. Yours truly has recalculated the global temperatures with a correction for the artificial 2.5 degree increase in 1990. The new and true global temperature graph looks as follows.

As you can see, it actually got a lot colder during the 1990s. It suddenly got more than 2 degrees colder. And you know what is really funny? Nobody seems to have noticed. The alarmists have been telling us all these scare stories about how bad everything is going to get if the temperature changes more than two degrees. The whole human race would go extinct, and so on. (Have they never heard about evolution?) Oh dear oh dear! But when it happens in reality, the change is so small that it is not even noticeable. And why should it be? There can be several degrees difference from day to day, and nobody cares. I usually wear the same coat (made of the finest mole-skin) the year around, whether it is warm or cold. Only by employing sophisticated but sound data processing techniques did I manage to discover this sudden cooling. So this definitely proves that (1) there is no warming, but on the contrary a cooling, and (2) climate change on the several-degrees-scale is completely harmless. It is of course no concidence that NASA and CRU conveniently "forgot" to do the correction that I did, and is no wonder that Michael Mann needed a trick to hide the decline. If it came out that the climate is cooling but yet no harm is done, it would be a two-pronged nail in the coffin of the antropogenic global warming scam. Well, now it has come out! Time to retire Pachauri, Hansen and Gore I say!

Exitus acta probat.

In which religions scientists must believe

2010-09-24T08:37:00.000-07:00

His Great Lordship, the indomitable Lord Mockton has weighed in on the proper relation between science and religion.
This is his powerful conclusion:

Why did so few true scientists speak out against the eugenic slaughter perpetrated by Hitler, or the famines caused by the Lysenko nonsense, or the millions of deaths from AIDS and malaria and yellow fever that could so easily have been prevented, but were not? And why do so few true scientists today have the courage to stand up and be counted against the cruel absurdity that is “global warming” theory, a theory that is now killing millions in the Third World because, while we can afford to pay $2 rather $1 for a burger, they are below the breadline already and simply cannot afford the doubling of food prices which, according to the World Bank, has resulted directly from the belief that “global warming” is a “global crisis” – a belief gladly fostered not only by the State but also by academe, by the media, and by the commercial world, for all imagine that they can profit greatly by it at our expense.

These dreadful and continuing episodes of careless, callous mass slaughter of innocent people by the governing class have one factor glaringly in common: they occurred because scientists lacked the moral fiber to stand out publicly and persistently against the bastardization of natural philosophy itself. They did not thunder: they cowered. Too many are cowering now, when they should be courageous enough, and true enough to their disciplines, to speak, speak out, and speak on until the truth is heard.

And why? Why this widespread, serial cowardice on the part of the scientific community? Yes, that community is now heavily, indeed almost exclusively, dependent upon the taxpayer for its funding. Science is a monopsony, with the State more or less the only paying customer. Yes, that community may legitimately say that most of its members do not specialize in the increasingly narrow fields in which the scientific debate about “global warming” is taking place. Yet there is another and more terrible reason why our scientists have so often and so catastrophically let down the millions whose deaths their cringing passivity has allowed.

Precisely because the worst sort of scientists are prone to say, intolerantly, that religion is not a legitimate pastime for any scientist, many scientists have come to the view that they no longer need to adhere to any moral precept at all. Morality, they say, is the province of religion and not of science. We, they say, can do what we like as long as we can get away with it, and there is no such distinction any more as true or false, right or wrong, just or unjust.

Perhaps, therefore, no one should be allowed to practice in any of the sciences, particularly in those sciences that have become the mere political footballs of the leading pressure-groups, unless he can certify that he adheres to one of those major religions – Christianity outstanding among them – that preach the necessity of morality, and the reality of the distinction between that which is so and that which is not. For science without the morality that perhaps religion alone can give is nothing.

That is right: evil in the world exists because too many scientists are Godless and spineless atheists. They hate God, and as humans are created to His image, they also hate humans. But if you hate God, then He will be wrathful and he will mess up your experiments, like in Quantum Physics. And the Lord Monckton has the answer: only those who believe in a religion may practice science, so they will have the moral compass (as given by God) to do good and avoid doing evil.
But what religions would be acceptable? Here I say that we need consider each religion carefully. Not just any religion will do. As a renowned expert both in science and in religion, I have separated the wheat from the chaff:

Christianity – obviously, as this is the outstanding religion when it comes to morality. And to science – just look at how many great scientists were Christians: Galileo, Newton, etc etc.

Judaism – well, Einstein was a Jew, and I’m not prejudiced. So Judaism is also acceptable.

Catholicism – no, the papists persecuted both Galileo and the Lord Monckton. They also invented the Inquisition.

Orthodox Church – no, orthodoxy is the opposite of scepticism. And they are heretically wrong about the Filioque.

Islam – no, a religion of oppression and terrorism. Need I mention Usama bin Laden? Need I mention Barack Obama? Need I mention Obama bin Laden?

Hinduism - no, they believe in a lot of weird gods. They believe in holy cows. And need I mention Pachauri?

Buddhism – no, they don’t believe in reality, so how can they then do science?

Atheism aka Humanism– no! This is also a religion, because to not believe in God is also a religious position. But the absence of a punishing but loving God makes it utterly amoral.

Liberalism – no! The Godless religion of Liberalism (aka Communism aka Fascism) is just like Atheism. Actually, they are the same thing. Thus spoke Ann Coulter!

Environmentalism – no! This is a religion of Gaia worship that believes that mosquitoes are more valuable than humans. No other religion has caused more deaths in the history of mankind.

Anthropogenic Global Warming – no! This is also a religion, and their god is CO2. They believe that CO2 has supernatural powers which allow it to control the climate, and that they must appease the wrath of the CO2 god by living in discomfort and misery. Also see Environmentalism.

Witchcraft aka Wiccaism - no! Ritually practiced at the NASA compound, according to information from credible sources. A religion of evil, mocking God!

Pastafaranism aka Flying Spaghetti Monsterism - no, this is not even a real religion. It is just a mock religion invented by atheists in order to make fun of respectable religions (i e Christianity). Pathetic! Has many supporters in academia, but do not let that fool you! They will not fool me again, that's for sure!

So in summary, to be a practicing scientist, you should prove that you either are a Christian (obviously) or a Jew (I'm not prejudiced).

Standford study: CO2 emissions are not a problem

2010-09-22T07:00:00.000-07:00

A new study from Standford university has proven that CO2 emissions are not a problem. I quote:

Davis and Caldeira, with colleague Damon Matthews of Concordia University in Montreal, calculated the amount of carbon dioxide expected to be released from […] energy infrastructure worldwide, and then used a global climate model to project its effect on the Earth’s atmosphere and climate.
“The problem of climate change has tremendous inertia,” says Davis. “Some of this inertia relates to the natural carbon cycle, but there is also inertia in the manmade infrastructure that emits CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
After compiling data on lifetimes and emissions rates for the full range of fossil-fuel burning devices worldwide, the researchers found that that between the years 2010 to 2060 the total projected emissions would amount to about 500 billion tons of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere. To gauge the impact, they turned to the climate model. The researchers found that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 would stabilize at less than 430 parts per million (ppm) and the increase of global mean temperatures since preindustrial time would be less than 1.3°C (2.3°F).
“The answer surprised us,” says Davis. “Going into this study, we thought that […] sources of CO2 emissions would be enough to push us beyond 450 ppm and 2°C warming.” In light of common benchmarks of 450 ppm and 2°C, these results indicate that the devices whose emissions will cause the worst impacts [do not exist].

It seems that the scientists are finally making climate models that have some resemblance to reality. For us climate realists, it hardly comes like a surpise that nothing we do can have any effect on the climate. Another nail in the coffin of Global Warming aka Climate Change aka Climate Disruption!

Non semper erit aestas.

The vicious ad hominem campaign against Lord Christopher Monckton continues

2010-09-22T03:25:00.000-07:00

We have written before about the vicious ad hominem campaign against Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, curer of HIV, MS and the common cold, victor of the Falklands War and vanquisher of Al Gore. Now it apaprently time for another ad hominem attack, this time pertaining to a testimony Lord Monckton made in the American Congress, invited as an expert witness (and who could be more qualified?) by the pro-science and pro-Jesus Republican party. A number of alleged "climate scientsts" have written a 48-page letter to the US Congress, claiming they wanted to point out mistakes made by Lord Monckton. But their letter is full of ad hominems and expletives such as “very misleading", "profoundly wrong", "simply false", "chemical nonsense", and "cannot be supported by climate physics". It is blatantly clear that they cannot beat Lord Monckton on the science, so they instead attempt a loathsome smearing attack against His Lordly Highness.
But the Lord Monckton responds that he already has addressed all the points of the attempted rebuttal in a letter to the US Congress, and adds graciously about his detractors:

“One of the lead authors is currently under criminal investigation for alleged fabrication of results: another has been caught out in repeated lies: a third admits to suffering a mental disability: and many of the scientists whom these lead authors invited to contribute are among the long-discredited clique of Climategate emailers. Accordingly, it is unlikely that Congress will pay much attention to their political rant, which displays a lamentable absence of quantitative detail and a pathetic reliance on fashionable but questionable forecasting techniques that have long been compellingly contradicted by hard data.”

This incident, this battle in the Climate Wars ending in yet another decisive victory for us Climate Realists, is evidence that the alarmists are getting increasingly more desperate. If Monckton really was wrong about so many things, why the need for a rebuttal? Any mistakes by Lord Monckton would anyhow easily been spotted by members of the US Congress, by experts like John Carter and his fellow Texans. Indeed, this nasty ad hominem attack proves that Lord Monckton has struck a nerve. The eco-fascists know that their house of cards is falling apart.
It is also clear that the people behind this ad hominem attacks are rabid activists, and do not deserve to be called scientists. They do not possess the scientific objectivity that made Lord Monckton the number one choice for testifying in Congress. Instead, they want to stifle the scientific debate, and prevent other independent voices from being heard. They want to influence the political process, uninvited, and that is somehting an objective scientist never should do. These should be sufficient reasons for the US Congress to throw their ridiculous rant directly into the waste bin.
And Lord Monckton has, according to my excellent judgement, very good chances to win if he sues the people behind this disgraceful defamation attempt.

Guest Post by Rush Limbaugh: The Universe of Lies Versus the Universe of Reality

2010-09-21T13:46:00.000-07:00

Nobody else alive today possesses the Solomonic wisdom of Rush Limbaugh, the Greatest Radio Talk Show Host Ever. We should always listen when Rush Limbaugh speaks. It is pure gold coming out of his mouth. I honestly wish I could be such a great orator as Rush Limbaugh! And one day I may become that, if I work really hard.
At the same time, the one thing we should never forget is Climategate. We must never ever never ever never ever forget Climategate. Never ever. And we must never ever never ever never ever let anybody else forget either. We must always talk and discuss and analyse and speak the truth about Climategate. Therefore I am very proud to offer this guest post by Rush Limbaugh, which I borrowed from one of his talks from November last year. (I borrowed the picture from there as well. Thanks, Rush!)

ClimateGate Hoax: The Universe of Lies Versus the Universe of Reality

We're going to talk about Copenhagen. We really live, folks, in two worlds. There are two worlds. We live in two universes. One universe is a lie. One universe is an entire lie. Everything run, dominated, and controlled by the left here and around the world is a lie. The other universe is where we are, and that's where reality reigns supreme and we deal with it. And seldom do these two universes ever overlap. A great illustration is what's happening here with what is now incontrovertibly known as a hoax. We know that the lead place, this Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University -- which is the number one advisor and communicator with the IPCC, which is the UN's climate-control crowd.

We know that data was made up to advance the notion that man is causing the climate to warm. We know that data was purposely left out that hides the fact that the earth is cooling. Even on this bunch's website, they cannot hide the fact that temperatures have not increased the last ten years, and they've had to come up with some of the most irrational, illogical explanations for it. "Well, it's the ocean currents out there. It could be El Nino or La Nina. A lot of stuff is going on," but they specifically ignore anything related to the sun! And without the sun, there's nothing. How you can ignore the sun in the whole concept of warming is idiocy. But the point is this: We have now the facts. I don't care how it happened, whistle-blower or a hacker.

[...]

You know, folks, the two universes here -- The Universe of Lies, The Universe of Reality -- they don't overlap anymore. And this is even bigger than global warming, which was my point yesterday. It's about everything that the left is involved in. What this fraud, what the uncovering of this hoax exposes, is the corruption that exists between government and academia and science and the media. Science has been corrupted. We know the media has been corrupted for a long time. Academia has been corrupted. None of what they do is real. It's all lies! It is all oriented toward a political outcome. It's bigger than global warming. And of course science has been corrupted here. Science is being used for political purposes.

It always has been, but this is a new low -- or a new high, depending on your perspective. But what they have done here is now make it reasonable to doubt everything some scientist says who gets government money from somewhere. And if you know what's good for you, if you know that they're leftists, you won't believe anything they say any time, anywhere, about anything. Their ideas are so hideous, are so insidious, so anti-free market, that they have to dress their ideas up in a phony cloak of compassion: Saving the planet, saving the polar bears, saving the water, saving the earth, saving whatever it is. "Saving the poor," while they destroy the poor. It just infuriating. So we have now the Four Corners of Deceit, and the two universes in which we live. The Universe of Lies, the Universe of Reality, and The Four Corners of Deceit: Government, academia, science, and media. Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit. That's how they promulgate themselves; it is how they prosper.

Ubi maior, minor cessat.

The alarmists are desperate!

2010-09-17T08:30:00.000-07:00

The NOAA launches yet another vicious ad hominem attack in their August report about global temperatures. In a transparent attempt to frighten and intimidate, they publish maps and graphs with a lot of red in them, like this one:

And this one:

And they write alarmist tripe like:

•For January–August 2010, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.7°C (58.5°F) tied with 1998 as the warmest January–August period on record. This value is 0.67°C (1.21°F) above the 20th century average.

The warmists must really be getting desperate. Their cheating and manipulations were laid bare by the Climategate scandal, and their watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside) scam is falling apart faster than a house of cards in a snowstorm. They publish rubbish like this only to divert the attention from "Mike's trick to hide the decline in global temperatures" and from Andrew Montford's recently published and devastating investigation into the Climategate inquiries. That the grant-grabbing people at NOAA resort to such desperate measures and ad hominem attacks is evidence that we climate realists are winning the hearts and minds of people all over the world.

Vincit omnia veritas.

The many-coloured flag of beliefs

2010-09-16T11:40:00.000-07:00

On her new blog (welcome!) the warmist, lukewarmer, skeptic, confusionist, notorious denier and anti-labelist Professor Judith Curry has come up with a system of describing ones belief in a certain proposition using the Italian flag.

The flag has three colours and each colour has a specific meaning. Green means Evidence for, red means Evidence against and the white in the middle means Uncertainty unknowns. Now one can describe ones belief in a certain proposition by assigning percentages to each colour. For instance, to the litmus test statement "Al Gore is fat" I give 90% green, 5% white and 5% red (as a hypothetical example).
Unfortunately, the system proposed by Curry is both imprecise and confusing. Therefore I would like to propose a better system, based on the combined flags of Belgium, Italy, France, Ireland and Argentina:

With this new flag we can enrichen Prof Curry's epistemic system with more categories of beliefs, such as the following (all inspired by things Prof Curry have written or said):

Black: Evidence for
Dark blue: Evidence against
Green: Uncertainty unknowns
White: It is a summary, a sort of review. I don’t bring my personal opinions into this.
Yellow: This question has not been adequately evaluated.
Orange: Girma, you raise important points.
Red: This is a postnormal, tribalistic environment.
Light blue: The signal is often hidden by the noise.

So now all we have to do when we are discussing a subject is to display a flag with the widths of the stripes in proportion to how much belief we assign to each possibility. That should make everything much clearer!

De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum.

Guest Post by Ryanair's O'Leary: I believe it's all a load of bullshit

2010-09-16T03:25:00.000-07:00

Today, I can a offer a post (copied from an article in the Independent) by another famous guest blogger: Michael O'Leary who is CEO if Ryanair, the highly successful European lowbudget airline. As CEO of an airline, O'Leary has to be an expert in weather and climate. He cannot afford to make any mistakes. Imagine that he sent his aircrafts into a thunderstorm and they crashed and all passengers died. That would have devastating consequences: the share prices of Ryanair would plummet on the stock market. So this is a man whom we surely can trust when it comes to the climate.

I believe it's all a load of bullshit
Nobody can argue that there isn't climate change. The climate's been changing since time immemorial.
Do I believe there is global warming? No, I believe it's all a load of bullshit. But it's amazing the way the whole f***ing eco-warriors and the media have changed. It used to be global warming, but now, when global temperatures haven't risen in the past 12 years, they say 'climate change'.
Well, hang on, we've had an ice age. We've also had a couple of very hot spells during the Middle Ages, so nobody can deny climate change. But there's absolutely no link between man-made carbon, which contributes less than 2pc of total carbon emissions [and climate change].
Scientists argue there is global warming because they wouldn't get half of the funding they get now if it turns out to be completely bogus.
The scientific community has nearly always been wrong in history anyway. In the Middle Ages, they were going to excommunicate Galileo because the entire scientific community said the Earth was flat... I mean, it is absolutely bizarre that the people who can't tell us what the f***ing weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the f***ing global temperatures will be in 100 years' time. It's horseshit.
The IPCC is a load of utter tosh

Licet volare si in tergo aquilae volat.

Guest post by John Carter: The Warmers are back

2010-09-15T02:56:00.000-07:00

Today, I'm very proud to have a guest post by American congressman John Carter, a Republican from Texas. Well, strictly speaking it is not a guest post because I didn't really invite John to write this, I simply copied it from his web site, but I'm still very proud to have pasted his text here. And although I do not personally know John, it feels like I have known him all my life!

The Warmers are back.

They were thoroughly discredited just last year in the international "Climategate" scandal. The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and their pals from the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit in Great Britain were caught red-handed, through their own email communications, to have intentionally falsified the scientific data on which they claim that human activity is a leading cause of global warming. Further, they were found to have hidden their own research results that showed world temperature not rising, but actually falling over the past several years.

The truth they tried to conceal from the world is that global temperature fluctuations are a normal earth cycle. We may or may not even be in a warming cycle. Even if we are, scientific evidence does not conclude that activity by man plays any significant role.

The reason for the lies is because the goal of these people is not to protect the environment, it is to implement a socialistic one-world government that has dictatorial control over every human activity, led by tyrannical liberal elites.

Global warming is simply a chicken-little scheme to use mass media and government propaganda to convince the world that destruction of individual liberties and national sovereignty is necessary to save mankind, and that the unwashed masses would destroy themselves without the enlightened global dictatorship of these frauds.

We do face a global threat. But it is not global warming, it is global tyranny from this crowd of liars – the Warmers.

Wise words indeed! Carter really nails it when he describes how the warmers are making stuff up in order to fool the gullible masses. You can read the rest of the guest post here.

Scientia non habet inimicum nisi ignorantem.

The honest broker

2010-09-12T11:50:00.000-07:00

The alleged climate change is a very controversial and politicized issue, in particular as it is being used as an excuse to overthrow our modern democratic society. The discussion between alarmists and realists has become polarized, with blogs such as ClimateProgress and RealClimate ramping up the hysteria to maximum levels and fomenting anger and hatred.

I’m saddened by this. This tribalism is really quite detrimental. As for myself, I am a sceptic now, but once I too was a believer in anthropogenic climate change. When I decided to learn more about the issue, I soon understood that I had been conned. The evidence was simply not there! However, I have always had an open mind and I have kept a civil tone, as any reader of my blog can testify. I wish everybody could be as open-minded and civil as me, so we could have a more fruitful discussion about this important issue. I consider myself to be positioned quite in the centre of opinions about climate change. Therefore, I have decided that I will be the honest broker, trying to bring both sides in the debate together on this blog in a constructive exchange of opinions and ideas.

In particular, I wish that both sides could admit that we really don’t know anything about how the climate works. Some people say that Earth is turning into a hothouse, and some people say that an ice age is imminent. How are we to know who is correct? I say that we should be humble when facing the mysterious and unknowable forces of nature. What nature does is much more important than our petty disagreements.

The alarmist side needs to admit that the Climategate scandal and all the other scandals revealed massive and systematic fraud and oppression in the climate science community. On the other hand, climate realists should also admit that not all climate scientists are unscrupulous con men, but that there are some that are basically honest but simply dare not speak out about their doubts out of fear of the IPCC inquisition and its merciless henchmen. Only by openly admitting our mistakes can we progress toward mutual trust and respect.

Often while sitting by the side of the beds of poor orphans with cancer, I have wept silent tears over the current state of strife, anger and distrust in the climate science community. Just remember CRU’s brutal treatment of Steve McIntyre’s data requests , or how Menne and accomplices shamelessly stole Anthony Watts’s meticulously collected weather station data. But I say: let’s forgive what happened in the past. That one of the two sides has predominantly been at fault is not so important – we must forgive about the past and focus on the future. Let’s give it all a fresh start. Let’s forget about the frauds and tricks of Jones and Mann and Hansen and Bolin and Revelle and Keeling and Arrhenius and Tyndall and Fourier, and start anew with a clean slate. Only that way can we truly begin to comprehend how the climate works and make a better future for the children of the world.

Reforming the IPCC: how to do it properly!

2010-09-08T07:16:00.000-07:00

Dear readers,
Following the mercilessly critical report from IAC about the IPCC there have been plenty of discussions about what to do with the IPCC. It might be tempting to just disband the thoroughly discredited organization. However, I am an honest broker who only wants to mediate between the two sides in the climate controversy. I take no sides - I just want the objective truth. Fairness and balance are very important valued to me. After a careful and informed analysis of the situation, I have come to the conclusion that a thoroughly revised IPCC might be instrumental in finally putting the AGW scam to rest in a coffin full of nails. The IPCC could be turned into a powerful weapon against the eco-fascists. As they are inherently authority-believing, the eco-fascists might change their minds if the IPCC stated that there is no AGW problem (that is provided that their belief in authority is stronger than their hatred towards mankind). The following measures are intended to turn the IPCC and its future assessment reports into vehicles for Truth and Reason instead of vehicles for Eco-Fascist Fraud and Deception, as they have been so far.

No communists like Hansen and Mann should be allowed to participate. Only politically independent and objective people should be allowed. Thus, alls participants must have read and memorized “Atlas Shrugged”.

No people who receive grants for doing climate science should be allowed to participate. Such people will just make up scary things so they can get even more grants. Only economically independent people should be allowed.

Likewise, no people who publish climate science articles in peer-reviewed journals should be allowed. They just want to cite their own papers and those of their tribe.

No Chinese or Indians, who just want to weaken the competiveness of the West. Tricky bastards!

No previous IPCC participant can participate in the new IPCC (in particular not Pachauri)! . As everybody who has any experience with management knows, if you want to change an organization the first thing you must do is to get rid of all members/employees.

All previous IPCC participants must release all the email correspondence they have ever had. Releasing email correspondence is vital for the auditing of science and to guarantee repeatability and transparency.

All IPCC prisoners must be released and all weapons of mass destructions must be disarmed.

Any IPCC participant that claims that CO2 can affect the climate must, in order to be credible, abstain from travelling in airplanes and in cars, living indoors, eating warmed food and breathing.

No use of models. Good science is based on empirical observations, and not models. In particular, any “predictions” and “projections” about the future must be entirely based on observations, and not models. If Galileo and Newton and Maxwell and Einstein had bee diddling with models, science would never have progressed.

No use of temperature data. Temperature data, whether from thermometers on the ground or those mounted on satellites, are notoriously unreliable and affected by the urban heat island effect.

Likewise, sea level data, carbon dioxide data, precipitation data, arctic ice volume data and climate proxies must be avoided, as they are inherently unreliable and unscientific.

Climate data from other planets must be included, so we can compare the warming on Earth, the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Haley’s comet and the iron-core Sun. No theory that cannot explain all these warming incidents should be taken seriously.

Anecdotal evidence, such as medieval Chinese fleets navigating around the North Pole, should not be dismissed unless proven wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt. To rely more on instruments than on human observers and chroniclers is elitistic and in its essence anti-human.

No references should be allowed to any shady grey literature, like WWF reports. Only shiningly white NGOs working for the benefit of mankind, like the Heartland Institute, should be referenced. White humans are more important than grey frogs!

No references should be allowed to journals like Nature and Science, which have been participating in the suppression of AGW-skeptical papers. Only truly openminded and unbiased journals like Energy & Environment should be referenced.

For each unbalanced alarmist reference, there must be at least one skeptical reference in order to assure fairness and balance.

Uncertainty should be specified according to the scale “Uncertain”, “Highly uncertain”, “Extremely uncertain” and “Completely wrong”.

The best science nowadays is done on blogs, were new ideas easily can be proposed and peer review is instant. Hence, the focus of the assessment reports should be moved from reviewing what is published in the ivory-tower journals to what is published on the blog science blogs. The blogs belonging to journals like Science and Nature do not count – they are just ivory tower blogs masquerading as blog science blogs.

The assessment reports should not exceed 20 pages, and all information should be presented as comic strips. In that way, even illiterate people with a limited attention span will be able to comprehend it. (Like Al Gore, he he!)

In order to ensure its independence, the IPCC should not receive any funding from governments. Instead, it has find its own financing, for instance by selling advertisements in the assessment reports. The taxpayer money that is saved can be used for more important things, like eradicating malaria and giving tax cuts for productive citizens.

You might ask yourself, dear reader, “Why did they not do like this from the beginning? These proposals are bloody brilliant!” There are many answers to this, but I believe that the most important ones are:

IPCC was started by eco-fascists driven by a hatred for mankind.

They did not involve anybody who really knew how to do things the right way, like me. After all, they were all ivory-tower academics with no experience from real life.

They are not nearly as intelligent and well-informed as us sceptics.

IPCC has been a gigantic and self-generating bureaucracy, and a gray-train for those incapable of sustaining themselves out in the real world.

But will the IPCC cabal not try to resist these very reasonable, objective and balanced changes? No, they are simply too stupid and gullible to understand what the consequences will be. They could get away with their IPCC idiocy the first time only because we thinking people didn’t take them seriously enough. After their reign of terror, we will not make that mistake again. This time we will be on top of things!

Alea iacta est!

The InterAcademy Council delivers devastating critique of corrupt and incompetent IPCC

2010-08-31T11:12:00.000-07:00

The InterAcademy Council has just delivered its report on the IPCC, and it doesn’t mince words with the abject failures and the blatant corruption that has been discovered. As a matter of fact, the report completely thrashes the notorious organization. There is no way the IPCC can spin themselves out of this one!

Let me quote from the most significant sections of the report:

Executive Summary

IPCC [is a] massive, far-flung […] network of […] governments […], represents a significant social[ist] innovation. (p v)

Yes indeed, the IPCC is like a giant octopus and its goal is to establish a socialist world government!

climate science […] is certain to remain a controversial arena for some time […] uncertainties […] continue to impede our […] understanding of global climate change. (p vi)

The scientists cannot agree about anything, and we really don’t know more about the climate than a mole rat knows about rocket science. It is hubris to think otherwise!

Chapter 1:

scientists […]confidence in climate science has waned (p 7)

More and more rats are leaving the sinking ship!

this heated political context is amplified by a frenzied and often polarizing […] climate science (p 9)

The climate scientists are just pursuing their hidden political agenda, and that agenda is a communist one!

Chapter 2:

Significant shortcomings in each major step of IPCC’s assessment process[!] (p 17)

Everything the IPCC does is wrong! They are the most incompetent organization in the history of mankind.

As pointed out to the Committee by a presenter and some questionnaire respondents, alternative views are not […] cited in a chapter if the Lead Authors do not agree with them. (p 20)

Only those who fanatically support the orthodoxy are allowed to be heard! It is an utter disgrace that an organization that claims to be scientific acts like that.

The overall structure of the IPCC assessment process appears to […]significant improvements are […] necessary for the fifth assessment and beyond. (p 26)

Again, there just incredibly many things that are wrong with the IPCC process. It is so broken that it cannot be fixed.

Chapter 3

The IPCC uncertainty guidance […] was not […] followed in the fourth assessment, leading to […] errors. (p 36)

They don’t follow there own rules, ever! Even the mafia follow their own rules, for Christ’s sake! But the IPCC doesn’t. They are worse than the mafia.

Chapter 4:

Although a significant proportion of their time has been devoted to their chairmanship role, each of the three Chair incumbents to date has had significant professional responsibilities outside of the IPCC. (p 41)

A fish rots from the head down. This is exactly the kind of conflict of interests and corruption that I criticized in my previous post! I'm glad that the Council agrees with me.

Chapter 5:

In particular, the notion of a Wiki-style process was raised in presentations to the Committee and in responses to the questionnaire. A Wiki-style process is an electronic, webbased system in which the available literature on climate change can be uploaded, critically reviewed, and synthesized with previous information in near real time. (p 57)

Here they suggest that the IPCC should convert to blog science, the superior scientific paradigm! But instead of starting from scratch, why not simply use the excellent blog science blogs that I link to in the side bar? The people behind those blogs (Dr Anthony Whats, Prof Marc Morano, Prof Inferno, Dr Jo Nova, Dr Schweinsgruber) know more about climate science than all so-called IPCC authors together!

After such a devastating critique, it is absolutely necessary that Pachauri is fired and that all people involved in the previous reports are completely excluded from the IPCC process forever. Instead, only the most prominent blog scientists should be allowed to participate. And we should be paid substantial salaries to protect us from the corrupting influence of WWF and Greenpeace. Just to be on the safe side.

Commune naufragium dulce.

Update
As the Daily Express reports, the report also states that "there is little evidence [for its claims about global warming]" (Chapter 3, p 36). This should become a favourite quote of all climate realists!

Rajendra Pachauri bribes, bullies newpaper

2010-08-27T10:57:00.000-07:00

Rajendra Pachauri, Indian railroad porter and head of the mastodon-huge and thoroughly corrupt ICCCP, has bribed (or possibly bullied) the British newspaper The Guardian to publish an article which claims that Pachauri has been cleared of financial misdealings. It is obviously clear to any independent observer that (1) there is no way that Pachauri could have been cleared, and (2) the clearing is a whitewash. This is an undeniable and irrefutable consequence of web science logic. We don't know exactly how much Pachauri paid to The Guardian or what threats he made, but ICCCP is an immensely powerful organisation that keeps scientists and media in the unrelenting grip of an iron fist all over the world. They may even possess well hidden weapons of mass destruction (indeed they have never denied those claims). We can (and will) only speculate how many countless billions of the ICCCP money that went into Pachauri's own king-sized pockets. Pachauri is also known among well-informed people to have sold his own mother at least fifteen times, and to have invented twenty-two new forms of corruption previously unknown to mankind. Notice that the so-called review actually did not clear him of those latter charges. Wonder why?
It is clear that we cannot trust the main-stream media (MSM). Their stories are becoming increasingly fantastic and ridiculous! Thank good that the truth can be spoken out on blogs like this one.
Journalist George Monbiot writes: " We can expect this smear campaign to continue, and to become ever more lurid as new charges are invented." Yes indeed Georgie-boy, it will and must!

Pecunia non olet.

Hockey stick fraud refuted

2010-08-16T12:42:00.001-07:00

Do you remember the notorious and controversial hockey stick (above) which has been refuted so many times? Now it has finally been disproved by a paper in Annals of Applied Statistics by two genuine statisticians with no sordid connections to the climate fraud community. Their names are McShane and Wyner, and they have come up with the following temperatures for the last 1000 years:

It doesn't look at all like a hockey stick any more. Also look at the size of the error region (grey)! This is the final nail in the coffin of the AGW fraud!

Si uno adhuc proelio Romanos vincemus, funditus peribimus!

Decline of terrible phytoplankton

2010-08-08T08:31:00.000-07:00

A clearly biased study in the notorious left-wing journal Nature claims that marine phytoplankton are in retreat, and that the decline is related to climate change. Somehow, we are supposed to be worried by that. But just what the heck are these phytoplankton? They are very very tiny algae – typically their size is measured in micrometers. Which leads to the first question: just how did they count them? If they are so small, there must be really a lot of them, so there is no way that the researchers could have counted them all. And in order to claim that there is a decline in their numbers, they would need to count them several times. That is impossible! And what connection could this alleged decline have to climate change? The climate is not changing, only naturally. It is obvious to the informed reader that the whole paper is bogus. I don’t believe their results. The paper would never have managed to pass through the rigorous standards of peer review applied in blog science.

But the madness does not end there. Here are some pictures of phytoplankton (from NASA).

They look like some kind of freaky aliens! I wonder if all the eco-fascists lamenting their decline really know that they look like this? You bet they believe the phytoplankton look like tiny cuddly bunnies! The truth is not so pleasant. One of the most common kinds of phytoplankton is called the dinoflagellates, which is Latin for “terrible whip”. I certainly don’t want to get those things into my swim trunks and near my reproductive organs when I go for a swim in the ocean. The less of them the better, I say. But it is so typical of the enviro-nazis to care more about some weird-looking microscopic plants than about humans like me.

Philosophum non facit barba.

Listen to David Koch!

2010-07-29T10:11:00.000-07:00

David Koch, who owns Koch Industries together with his brother Charles, is interviewed in the New York Magazine:

Koch says he’s not sure if global warming is caused by human activities, and at any rate, he sees the heating up of the planet as good news. Lengthened growing seasons in the northern hemisphere, he says, will make up for any trauma caused by the slow migration of people away from disappearing coastlines. The Earth will be able to support enormously more people because a far greater land area will be available to produce food, he says.

Wise words from a wise man and a great captain of industry, good for $17.5 billion! I wish people would listen more to honorable men like Koch, and less to hucksters like Jim Hansen who just wants to hog research grants and install a communist world government!

Audio sapiens Kochum vir

Mexicans Schmexicans!

2010-07-29T09:37:00.000-07:00

There is a really silly paper in the Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences, which claims that global warming will cause millions of Mexicans to migrate to the United States. As anybody with some basic knowledge about history knows, mass migrations always come before the warming, and not after it. The Völkerwanderung or Migration period where Goths, Vandals, Anglons, Saxons and Huns moved around over Europe came before the Medieval Warming Period (see map). The great migration from the Old to the New World happened before the Recovery from The Little Ice Age period. Hence global warming cannot cause migrations - it must be the other way around.

And if Mexican migrations really would become a threat, the easiest solution for the United States would be to adapt and build a wall. Or maybe invade Canada. That would make much more sense than to stop using fossil fuels, which wouldn't have any noticable effects on the climate anyhow.

Utinam barbari spatium proprium tuum invadant!

The Blog-Citizens’ Tribunal to Find Out the Truth about the Climate Fraud

2010-07-28T09:59:00.000-07:00

Whitewash after whitewash have come out of the official so-called inquiries and investigations of the great Climategate scandal. It has become apparent that only by a concerted effort by independent and unbiased investigators in the blogosphere can we cut through the deceptions and lies of the climate conspirators. There have been some attempts to do this before, most notably by brave climate auditor Steve McIntyre and the noble senator James Inhofe, but they have been too feeble and too conventional. We need some new initiatives, some new leadership! Therefore I call all blog scientists and blog auditors and blog investigators and blog aurors to unite under the banner of Climate Truth and join our considerable intellectual powers and moral forces so we can strike the final nail into the battered coffin of the climate scam.

The famous detective Sherlock Holmes will be our guiding light in this noble endeavour. Holmes was a genius that also worked outside of the official channels, represented by the boneheaded Scotland Yard Gestapo officers. If Holmes’s methods could lead to victory against the abominable Professor Moriarty, then they could also aid us in defeating the abominable professors Jones and Mann and Hansen.

The great Sherlock Holmes once said:

How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

We have eliminated the impossible: we can be certain that the fraudsters are not innocent; that their “science” is not free of manipulations and fudging; that their models are no better than video games. It just like when we reason about what controls the climate: once we have eliminated carbon dioxide, we know that it must be the iron core of the sun, cosmic rays, clouds, a recovery from the LIA, underwater volcanoes, Mars, natural 1500-year cycles, and thousands of undiscovered but significant climate drivers and it is not warming anyhow.

But what is the truth that remains in the case of Climategate? Tricks, lies, cheating, gate-keeping, back-scratching en masse – that is for certain, but we need to determine more exactly what all the crimes and misdemeanours of the Hockey team are.

The great Sherlock Holmes also said:

To let the brain work without sufficient material is like racing an engine. It racks itself to pieces.

We surely don’t want to rack our minds to pieces, so the first step of our project must be to collect all the relevant material. There are lots of people out there in the internets who have a piece of the truth – they must all be heard! And that is the wonderful thing about blog science – everybody can be heard. You don’t need any fancy titles and white lab coats – you just need a sharp wit and an open mind unsoiled by AGW dogma. Indeed, we have listened to the ivory-tower academics for too long, and look where that has led us! It is time that we listen to the average Joe Sixpack instead. Therefore, I want to say to everybody: anything you know, anything you believe, every hunch you have are pertinent to our investigation. As Sherlock Holmes said:

It is, of course, a trifle, but there is nothing so important as trifles.

Do not fear that what you say would be trivial or irrelevant or speculative or wrong: you still deserve to be heard. How can we otherwise know that we have not missed some important piece of information? Your little piece, however improbable, may still remain after we have eliminated the impossible, and then it will have been proven to be true. So whatever you have seen or read or heard about, whatever rumors and whispers you have come across on the web, whatever emails you have managed to download from some university’s mail server: report it. If it is not impossible, it must be true! If you have received an evasive reply to one of your FOI-requests, report it. And if you haven’t received any reply, it is even more important to report it. Silence is the supreme evidence of a crime:

"Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
"The dog did nothing in the night-time."
"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.

Finally, we need to do what we do best: we need to think. We need to get down into our basements and lock the door and pour though all our material during endless sleepless nights, with only a pipe and a bottle of whisky and our online fellow auditors and investigators to keep us company, and we need to figure out what it all means. And we need to think unconventionally. Our minds must boldly go were no minds have gone before. As Sherlock Holmes said:

In solving a problem of this sort, the grand thing is to be able to reason backward.

Indeed, we need to think backwards. Not boring, castrated forward thinking like those ivory-tower academics, but bold and imaginative backwards thinking. And upside-down-thinking, and inside-out thinking, and three-impossible-things-before-breakfast-thinking, and all kinds of unconventional thinking, just like the great Holmes did. We will not subject ourselves to Occam’s razor or other medieval instruments of torture. No matter how labyrinthine their machinations are, we will unravel them:

Perhaps, when a man has special knowledge and special powers like my own, it rather encourages him to seek a complex explanation when a simpler one is at hand.

With our collaborative effort, we will eliminate the impossible and reveal the hidden Truth, and finally throw down Hansen and Jones and Mann and Briffa and their hockey-club-wielding minions from the top of the Reichenbach Falls! And I don’t mean that as a figure of speech! With the combined powers of hundreds of right-thinking, independent and impartial blog scientists and science auditors, we cannot fail. And finally, the new blog science will replace the old corrupted back-scratching academic science, and that will the final nail into the battered coffin of the climate scam.

I urge everybody who has some evidence to report to write it down in the comment section below!

I invite my colleagues in blog science and auditing to cooperate in this effort and to establish posts were good and honest blog citizens can report and analyze evidence!

I invite other initiatives, such as the investigation that Andrew Montford is conducting for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, to join our tribunal under my supreme command!

I would like to end with this quote by the Great Detective:

I am not the law, but I represent justice so far as my feeble powers go.

Alone, we might have feeble powers, but together in The Blog-Citizens’ Tribunal to Find Out the Truth about the Climate Fraud we are an unstoppable justice machine!

A lament on the difficulties in making an alarmist spoof site

2010-07-11T05:45:00.000-07:00

Humor is a most powerful weapon, often used by the oppressed against their oppressors. By ridiculing and laughing at the oppressors, the oppressed can undermine their authority and make them appear less frightening. For instance, the American revolutionaries used to tell many jokes about the English at their tea parties, and make funny impersonations of the English gay king. The conquered Han Chinese had a lot of dirty jokes about the Mongols and their horses, and Atlas Shrugged is full of the most wonderful anti-socialist humor.
Today, we are facing an even more terrifying oppression from the eco-warmo-fascists, and one weapon we can use against them is ridicule. But here a serious problem arises: how can one ridicule something that is already so utterly, inconceivably ridiculous? How can one crack jokes about something that is a joke itself, albeit a terrible joke that will enslave humanity? When the evil and the absurd, the vicious and the ridiculous join forces, satire becomes a blunt sword.
I have sometimes thought about making a spoof website that makes fun of the typical AGW fanatic blog, like “Deltoid” or “Real Climate” or “Climate Progress”. Maybe I could give it some silly animal name, like the existing sites called "Stoat" and "Rabett run". "Tapeworm Tom's Climate Truth" maybe? It could have been very funny, because we skeptics and anti-ecocommunists have a wonderful sense of humor whereas the warmo-stalinists are as boring as communist commissars in Siberia. They don't get even the simplest joke. But one thing held me back: would anybody really be able to tell that is was a spoof site? Or would it be indistinguishable from the real thing? Would it perhaps turn out to be more sensible than the real thing? This is called the pope's law, which states that when you make fun of the pope, you will never be as funny as the real pope. Of course, Catholics do not laugh in either case.
Indeed, the person who wants to make a parody of the eco-nazis faces an uphill battle. For instance, one might want to make fun of the warmo-terrorists' obsession with al'Gore, who is the pope of their AGW-religion. They talk about him all the time: "Al'Gore said this, al'Gore said that, al'Gore made a movie everybody has to watch, al'Gore got the Nobel Peace prize". On and on they rant about their beloved saint al'Gore, who in fact is fat, has a big house, a big butt, an airbase, a wide girth, and makes billions of dollars from his AGW scam and doesn't dare to debate Lord Monckton. And he is obese too! But the warmists worship him like he was some fat demi-god (I'm not joking), and it is impossible to make up anything more ridiculous, unless one really exaggerates. Maybe one could drone (wearing a fatsuit): "I'm al'Gore and you should all kill yourselves as sacrifices on my altar!" However, that might not be an exaggeration at all. It might one day become perfectly true, and then it is not so funny anymore.
Or one could try to make up funny spoof theories that are even sillier and more illogical than the current AGW theory. But how would that be possible? The AGW theory postulates the existence of so-called positive feedbacks that would amplify the alleged warming caused by the unproven increase of tiny tiny carbon dioxide atoms in the atmosphere. But the "positive feedback" theory is grotesquely illogical - a positive feedback would lead to an infinite cycle of amplifications upon amplifications, until Earth became immensely warm¹. Yet they believe it. It doesn't get any sillier than that!
Then there is the AGW-drones’ fanatical belief in authority. "It was published in a peer-reviewed journal, so it must be true", "all these scientific academies and societies support the AGW theory", "all these journal papers support the AGW theory". It's like listening to Muslims shouting that all these Ayatollahs and Imams and Muftis say that Allah is great. Of course, the warmo-talibans don't even understand the articles they rant about; they simply believe what the authors claim. The other side of that litany is that nobody who is not a member of the climate science cabal and doesn't have a diploma in back-scratching AGW orthodoxy is to be trusted: "Lord Monckton is not a climate scientist", "McIntyre is not even a PhD", "Watts is just a TV meteorologist". It is just because these people are independent and uncorrupted thinkers that we should trust them!
And finally, there are the outlandish conspiracy theories of the climate change clowns. They scream about money from the oil companies, and connections to the tobacco companies, and about right-wing think-tanks and scientists for hire. It is all silly lies for the gullible masses of course, and the great irony is what a lack of imagination it reveals. The dreamed-up oil conspiracies are nothing compared to the real conspiracies that the kleptocratic masters of the AGW new world order have concocted and are enacting as you read these very words. How do you make fun of such unimaginative people as the CO2-haters? Silly, no sense of humor and no imagination: that's the Gore-Jugend for you!
One could make a really long list about such issues: their ad-hominem-throwing, the way AGW has become a religion, the denial of the criminal data-fudging and curve-tricking, the hypocrisy in pretending to care for people in Africa while denying them the blessings of fossil fuels such as driving SUVs, their naive unawareness of the powerful economical interests behind the AGW bubble (i.e. the renewable energy industry, the electric car industry, the low-energy light bulb industry, Greenpeace), their rabid ramblings against anyone who dares to question them, their blind devotion for al'Gore, their ugly earth-colored clothes, their boring vegan food (fit for rabbits), their pathetic stereotyping, and their endless projections of their own flaws and pathologies upon their noble opponents. Given how utterly ridiculous and idiotic the climate fundamentalists are, it is no easy task to make fun of them in a classy and sophisticated manner, just like it is hard to make chaste jokes about prostitutes. The jokes tend to get as grotesque and vulgar and shrill and tasteless as the people you are joking about. And yet they would be quite indistinguishable from the real thing. Indeed, some people have tried to make AGW-maniac spoof sites, most notably DeSoggyBog but with little success. Hmm, maybe the best joke would be to simply repeat what the eco-talibans are saying. Their own words are the best jokes!

¹ We know that the feedbacks are negative, which makes it nearly impossible for the climate to change, unless it is by natural causes like during the Medieval Warming Period.

Arctic ice is not melting

2010-07-09T09:17:00.000-07:00

Over at the eternally interesting blog WUWW (What’s Up With Watts?), there is an excellent post about the alleged decline of the Arctic sea ice. It is well worth reading: Steven Goddard is giving the warmofascists a really good bashing. However, when talking about arctic sea ice, people seem to miss the most important point. Fortunately, I'm here to tell you what it is. The most important point is that when ice is melting, and it turns into water that is warmer than the ice was, it is just a matter of transfer of energy from somewhere else. You see, the energy (in the form of heat) that warms the ice and makes it melt does not appear magically - it must come from somewhere else. And that somewhere else gets colder when the energy leaves it. You can observe the same phenomenon by putting ice into a glass of Single Malt. As the ice melts, the Single Malt gets colder. The ice is not melting because the Single Malt is getting warmer - it is the opposite. The Single Malt is actually getting cooler. So the melting of sea ice doesn't mean it is getting warmer, like the ad-hominem-slinging Al Gore Gestapo goon squad wants you to believe. It is only a matter of a redistribution of energy/heat, and that is perfectly natural. Actually, human activities cannot redistribute heat. Such redistribution would be a violation of Maxwell's demon, which is the foundation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
In addition, it takes very little energy to melt ice, as it only has to change from -epsilon to +epsilon degrees, where epsilon signifies a very very small number. So very small redistributions of energy can make a lot of ice melt. Like the flutter of the wings of a butterfly on Hawaii. So it is really silly to thinks that it has anything to do with human activities (unless it is butterfly-breeding humans).
If we look at the curve of the extent of the ice, we can see that it resembles what mathematicians call a Sine curve, after the Greek letter Sinulon. Sine curves occur in many situations in nature; for instance, sound waves are made up of Sine curves. And a Sine curve can never reach 0. It is mathematically impossible: the equation sine x = 0 has no solution. This proves mathematically that all ice can never melt, just as clearly as it proves that a sound never can be silent. And non-complete ice melting makes perfect sense: as the ice melts, we get more water, and the more water we get, the more ice can there be. Because – guess what - ice comes from water! Maybe the Dumming-Kruger-afflicted so-called climate scientists at NASA should try to learn some physics and mathematics for once!
In vino veritas!

Addendum: As Count Dracula very perceptibly has pointed out, I made a small mistake regarding the sine function. It is actually 0 when x=0. This implies that there was no arctic sea ice when Baby Jesus was born, during the Roman Steaming Period.
This article was published and peer reviewed within two hours. Wouldn’t it be great to see all climate science treated in the same manner whatever its source?
This is indeed the way that we need to peer-review from now on. Not gate-keeping, nor appeals to authority via a self-seeking, peer-review process that claims that only its accredited disciples are competent to judge!
My superior mental processing was laid bare, was replicable and found to be a tiny bit at fault. The self-styled Science of Climate, has been characterized via its most enthusiastic adherents by non-transparency, obfuscation and odorants of deceit. The deceit is still denied by the warmofascist ad-hominem-spitting eco-terrorists!

Whitewash! Whitewash!

2010-07-08T02:06:00.000-07:00

In a pattern which is becoming sadly familiar, two more "inquiries" into the Great Climategate Scandal have "found" that "nobody" had done anything "wrong". As anybody with any rudimentary cognitive capabilities understands, these inquiries are just a whitewash that would make Virgin Mary's bed linen look as black as coffee in Congo! If there was no wrong-doing, why do all these inquiries? Such inquiries are only travesties and tricks performed to hide the decline ... sorry the crime. Everybody knows that! They always give the opposite result of what the truth is! Hence if the inquiries actually had found that Mann and Jones were guilty as hell, then I would have believed these men to innocent like new-born lambs in the arms of Baby Jesus. Unless it was a trick to convict Jones and Mann in order to make them appear innocent. Hah, I'm not that easily fooled! But with the outcome we have seen now, it is obviously an attempt to make Jones and Mann appear innocent in order to make them really appear guilty in order to make them seem innocent, because everybody knows that inquiries always lie. There is only one type of inquiry that could have told us the truth, and that is a Blog Inquiry, in which prominent blog scientists and intelligent layman commenters, unsoiled by the corrupting influence of what passes as "science" nowadays, work together on the Web to express their informed opinions about the truth.
What is obvious irrespectively of these inquiries, which constitute layers upon layers of elaborate deception that only the sickest and most depraved mind could come up with, is that Mann and Jones have fudged and manipulated and tricked the data in order to support an immaculately preconceived conclusion - indeed a conclusion that any right-thinking person by instict must know is wrong. But that is not science - that is closing your eyes to Truth. The so-called AGW theory is an non-falsifiable oxymoron, and theories that are non-falsifiable are not scientific! It has also been disproved many times, by Gerlisch and Tscheuschler, by Soon and Baliunas, by Miskolczi, by Ernst-Georg Beck, by Lord Monckton, by McIntyre, by Inferno and finally by myself! And by its nature of being unfalsifiable and falsified at the same time, AGW theory leads to a contradiction, and logically this means that it has to be wrong. Reductio ad adsurdum!

Global warming, DDT and malaria - the true story

2010-06-19T12:17:00.000-07:00

The graph above is the most important graph I have published on this blog. Indeed, this post may very well be the most important piece of blog science ever to be published on the web!

At first sight, it may seem like a perfectly ordinary global temperature graph from NASA, but if you look closer you see that I have indicated some important events. You may ask yourself "What do those events have got to do with the climate". I will soon explain that.

In 1940 Swiss chemist Paul Müller discovered that DDT was effective against insect pests, but completely harmless to humans and higher animals. It was used by the American army to protect the troops from diseases during WWII, and after the war it was used to eradicate malaria all over the world. People in the tropics were very happy - now their children didn't have to die in malaria anymore. And DDT was perfectly harmless. One could even eat it for breakfast. As a matter of fact, my parents used to serve me and my siblings a bowl of DDT every morning, and it sure haven't done us any harm.

But in 1962, a woman called Rachel Carson wrote a book, Silent Spring, which was a vicious, hysterical and unscientific attack on DDT and other wonderful pesticides. Carson claimed that malaria mosquitoes had the same right to live as African, Asian and Latin American children, and therefore it was wrong to kill the former with DDT to save the latter. In other words, she was a typical environmentalist. Ten years later, and with the support of Jackie Kennedy, the Environmental Protection Agency banned the use of DDT all over the world. The African, Asian and Latin American children immediately started to succumb to malaria again, but the environmentalists didn't care. And they still don't care, although billions of people have died as a direct result of the ban since then! Or they probably just thinks it is good - the fewer humans the better!

Now we come to my great discovery. If we look at the temperature graph, we can see that around 1940, the temperature started to decrease. Then around 1972, it started to increase again. You see: with DDT and no malaria, the world cools. With no DDT and with malaria, it warms. This cannot be a mere coincidence. And the explanation is obvious and undeniable. People with malaria gets a fever, and hence they get warmer. So more people with malaria means more warm people. And this will obviously affect the weather stations, as they typically are placed in or near inhabited areas. And even more important - people need to go near the stations to collect and record the temperature data. If they have a fever, this will make the thermometer readings higher. It is as simple as that. This explanation obviously makes much more sense than that our minuscule emissions of an insignificant trace gas like carbon dioxide would make the entire world warm. The latter goes against every one of the laws of physics and is hubris of the highest degree. But carbon dioxide comes from fossil fuels, the source of all our prosperity, and the environmentalists hate fossil fuels and prosperity.

So the truth is that more malaria causes higher temperatures, and not the other way around like the ICCCP wants us to believe. They have completely got the causal direction wrong, just like they did with the ice cores. My new theory (actually a fact) can also very elegantly explain the Medieval Warming Period. There were lots of plagues at that time, included the dreaded Black Death. No wonder it was so warm then, and civilisation could prosper. I will write a scientific paper about this and publish it in Energy and Environment - the only journal that would dare publish such unorthodox but true discoveries that go against the dogma of the corrupt climatology estabishment and their gate-keepers and tricksters and fugders. The warmists are a bunch of weaselly, no-good, snivelling, yellow-bellied, milquetoast losers quite terrified of having the massive holes in their puny arguments mercilessly exposed by skeptical blog scientists like myself.

The eco-fascists must not get away with their terrible crimes. Look:

First the eco-fascists ban DDT so billions of children die in malaria. Hitler and Stalin would be envious!
The heat from the malaria victims makes it appear to be warming.
Then the the eco-fascists blame the alleged warming on carbon dioxide, the innocent gas of life, in order to halt all use of fossil fuels and make us all live under medieval conditions or worse!

Culpae poena par esto!

Ode to James Delingpole

2010-06-18T12:30:00.000-07:00

In these days of near-total dominance of eco-fascism in the media today, when zombie-like watermelon reports slavishly parrot Al’Gore’s dogma like whimpering lap dogs fearing the whip of their eco-fascist masters, it is a great joy to read the columns of a truly independent, upright, skeptical, back-boned journalist like James Delingpole at the British newspaper the Telegraph. The indomitable Delingpole has no fear of the evil eco-fascist cabal and their cohorts of trolls chanting like mad “We are doomed because it’s getting a little bit warmer! We must obey our overlord Al’Gore.” With relentless logic, a wit sharp like the edge of an executioner’s axe just before it slices through the thick necks of the eco-fascist hydra, and a truly encyclopedic knowledge of all things scientific, he challenges the nauseating lunacy and madness of the global warming religion.
He has a firm grip of the latest scientific discoveries, and guess – they all show that the eco-fascist global warming fraud is utterly and irrevocably wrong:

“Indeed, [Bob Carter] says, some scientists suggest that the rise in atmospheric CO2 in the Twentieth Century may represent ocean outgassing caused as long ago as the Medieval Warm Period.”

He is never afraid to uncover the nauseating cynicism of the eco-fascist cobblers and to take the side of the “small people” against the evil eco-fascist machinery. This is what he has to say about how the Kenyan usurper Obama cynically tries to take advantage of the great tragedy that recently befell the shareholders of BP in the Mexican Gulf:

“Barack Obama’s behaviour throughout this oil crisis has been a disgrace – but not for the reasons given by all those watermelons who have taxed him with not having done enough to stop the flow or punish BP. (Yeah, he should have declared war on Britain, that’s what he should have done! And imprisoned everyone who works at BP in Gitmo! And then nuked every Big Oil company in the world just for good measure!)
Rather, his crime has been to pander to the worst excesses of the environmental left – and cynically to exploit a private Louisianan tragedy in order to advance his personal eco-socialist agenda.”

And what most impressing is that in spite of all the dirty ad hominems, mudslinging, dirt throwing, and gooble-eyed vitriol spitting from the drooling jaws of the eco-retards he never looses his style and gracefulness, his tact and his fact. He never let them drag him down to their level. And he never looses his delightful sense of humor.

“Divorce is killing our planet. … And that’s just if they’re normal people. Imagine how much more disastrous it would be, if they were as profligate as almost-billionaire carbon trader and creator of the ManBearPig religion Al Gore. Just one of his homes – the 20 room one in Nashville – is reckoned to consume about 20 times more electricity than the US national average. So that means that if – God forbid – Al Gore’s blubbery cuddliness, weird half-asleep voice and fascinating power point lectures should ever cease to delight his loving wife Tipper, the planet could well be facing an ecological disaster that makes the Louisiana oil tragedy look about as menacing as your neighbour’s barbecue.
But what’s this I hear? Noooooooooooo! Surely it can’t be true? Al and Tipper the Burton/Taylor, the Antony/Cleopatra, nay the Pamela/Tommy Lee of the global ecological movement are to separate?
This is too awful. I am inconsolable. Please do not disturb me.
Allow me to grieve in silence.”

The sputtering eco-fascist and libtard Monbiot, who is a squirmy, weaselly get-out of a no-good, snivelling, yellow-bellied, milquetoast loser quite terrified of having the massive holes in his puny argument mercilessly exposed by Delingpole, has cowardly suggested that Delingpole is "a mole, paid by Greenpeace to inflict as much damage on the anti-green cause as possible."
No, Mr Moonbat, you fourteenth-rate biologist and ecotard, I can ensure you and everybody else that Delingpole is as genuinely anti-green, anti-ecofascist and anti-Monbiot as myself!

To celebrate the dear James and give him some encouragement in his battle against the envirofascist windmills, I have composed a humble little poem. Maybe not exactly Shakespeare, but pretty close.

Ode to James Delingpole

Delingpole, Delingpole,
he is so clever, he is no fool
All the lies of the eco-fascists,
He knocks them down with both his fists.
And if they try to make a trick,
Delingpole will give'em a kick.
His fingers are fast and his pen is sharp,
Makes Monbiot look like a panting carp.
He writes as well as Christopher Booker,
The ladies think he is a looker!
For Delingpole I lift my hat,
He is lean and Gore is fat.

Update: In today's column Delingpole reveals that the cause of the Deepwater Horizon accident is that BP spent a lot of money on greenwashing instead of safety. It's all the eco-fascists' fault!

Update 2: Upon the request of one of my commenters, I substituted the picture of a filly below for this picture of Delingpole in military uniform.

Retarded 6-year-old disproves global warming

2010-06-12T12:01:00.001-07:00

Benny Galt, a 6-year-old boy from Mineola, Texas, used to be considered special only in the sense that his level of development was slightly below that of most other children in his own age. Therefore he surprised everybody when he single-handedly managed to disprove the theory of man-made global warming. That makes him the youngest global-warming disprover sofar. Benny's proud father, former truck driver Obediah Galt, tells the story of how Benny defeated Al Gore and the global warming establishment one day when he was playing with his crayons.

"Benny usually eats the crayons, so I told him: 'Draw on the god-damn paper!' He is something of a retard, the boy. His mother drank a lot during the pregnancy", says Obediah as he smokes a joint, making no effort to be politically correct. "After a while, he told me 'Look, Daddy', and showed me this amazing drawing."

Next day, Obediah contacted the Orgone Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) in order to get an expert's opinion. The OISM is considered one of the leading centers for climate research in the world. Craig Hitso from the institute comments:
"Once I saw the drawing, I knew that this would be the final nail in the coffin for the so-called anthropogenic global warming theory. It is all there. The sun at the top of the drawing - climate models do not take the sun into account. This young boy has shown thay they are wrong. The sun is an important part of the picture. Second, there is a polar bear. Global warming theory should kill all the polar bears, but there it is, and it looks pretty happy too. Third, there is the human figure to the left, and that is unmistakably al'Gore. And al'Gore is fat! Look at his girth! That definitely disproves global warming theory."

The drawing of young Benny has clearly created quite a stirr in the scientific community. In two weeks, Benny has been invited by senator James Inhofe to testify in the senate about the non-existent threat of global warming, and his expert testimony is believed to forever put the cap-and-tax proposal in the waste bin. Benny has also been mentioned by insiders in the Republican party as a future scientific advisor for future president Sarah Palin.

"I'm so proud of my Benny", says Benny's mother Dagny Galt. "He's my special little guy!"

Adeo in teneris consuescere multum est.

Fingerprint of Mann-made global warming found

2010-06-09T10:17:00.000-07:00

The figure above is probably the most important single figure ever published on this blog, and we have had some pretty important figures before. We are the first to report that the investigation conducted by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli concerning the global warming fraud of Michael Mann finally has had success. The graph above was found in Mann's archive left behind at the University of Virginia when Mann escaped to Penn State university. It shows a so-called hockey-stick graph, and one can clearly see how it has been doctored to show a strong increase in temperature the last 100 years - a so-called hockey stick blade. However, the person who doctored it left a fingerprint behind, and that fingerprint has been identified as belonging to Michael Mann. This is conclusive evidence that Mann is guilty of global warming fraud, a crime that can give up to 30 years in jail. Cuccinelli is presently negotiating with Pennsylvanian legal authorities about the extradition of the fugitive.

This is surely good news, but it hardly comes as a surprise for us truth-lovers. It was expected that Mann sooner or later would make a mistake, like forgetting to wear gloves while manipulating data. Still, we owe the never-ceasing vigilance and determination GA Cuccinelli much gratitude for finally putting an end to Mann's reign of climate terror. We can only hope that the Scotland Yard will be equally successful with the case of Phil Jones.

Teneas simium meum

"Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley etc gives a warmist a good whipping

2010-06-06T13:11:00.000-07:00

A warmist extermist by the name of John Abraham, from some Papist Bible college, has made an attempt to smear Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, curer of HIV, MS and the common cold, victor of the Falklands War and vanquisher of Al Gore, with a very boring power point presentation. Poor Abraham obviously didn't realise that he was up against somebody with ten, nay fifty, times his own intellectual capacity! Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, curer of HIV, MS and the common cold, victor of the Falklands War and vanquisher of Al Gore gives him a really good verbal whipping, and Abrahams is now crawling back under the fungus-infested stone that he came from, wimpering like a little puppy-dog. For your entertainment and enlightenment, dear reader - here are some choice pieces from Monckton's thorough and gracious thrashing of Abraham.

John Abraham, a lecturer in fluid mechanics at a bible-college in Minnesota has recently issued – and widely disseminated – a hilariously mendacious 83-minute attempted rebuttal of a speech by me about the climate last October in St. Paul, Minnesota.
So unusual is this attempt to actually meet us in argument, and so venomously ad-hominem are Abraham’s artful puerilities, that climate-extremist bloggers everywhere have circulated them and praised them to the warming skies.

My comment: yes, it is so typical of the warmocommunists to use ad hominem!

Abraham’s approach is novel. He’s saying not that I got one thing wrong but that I got just about everything wrong. And how plausible is that?

My comment: it is vanishingly unlikely!

Why has it taken Abraham so long to cobble together his ramblings?
The answer – and, as I shall show, it is the right one – is that his deliberately dishonest personal attack on my integrity and reputation is an ingenious fiction, he knows it, and he has therefore had to go to some elaborate and time-consuming lengths to conceal the steps he has taken to hide the truth and make this nonsense look plausible.

My comment: and because Abraham is slow like a Soviet tractor! Which proves that he is a communist!

The truth is that the first graph, plainly labeled “scienceandpublicpolicy.org”, is the SPPI’s well-known global-temperature index, compiled monthly from four separate global-temperature datasets, as Abraham well knew because I explained in my talk. It was not a NOAA graph, and was not labeled as such. Naturally, therefore, it differed at some points from the NOAA graph.

My comment: what boundless ignorance! Has Abraham never heard about the famous SPPI global-temperature index?

The graph was plainly labeled “UAH”, which – as a mere Bible-College lecturer in fluid mechanics might not know, but anyone with any real knowledge of climate science would of course know – is the University of Alabama at Huntsville, one of only two organizations producing regularly-published satellite-based global temperature records.

My comment: Ha ha ha! Maybe you should try to learn at least a tenth of what the Viscount knows about climate science. But that would probably take you a life-time, Johnny-boy!

Well, I could go on. And on and on. And on and on and on.

My comment: yes, indeed the highly esteemed Viscount could practically go on for ever!

Just about every one of the 115 slides presented by Abraham in his shoddy little piece of lavishly-funded venom contains serious, serial, material errors, exaggerations, or downright lies. All I have been able to do here is to give you some flavor of how unscientific, inaccurate, and deliberately mendacious Abraham’s video is.

Now you will understand why I have already initiated the process of having Abraham hauled up before whatever academic panel his Bible College can muster, to answer disciplinary charges of wilful academic dishonesty amounting to gross professional misconduct unbecoming a member of his profession.

My comment: Serves him right! And as Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, curer of HIV, MS and the common cold, victor of the Falklands War and vanquisher of Al Gore is an independent scientist without any corrupting government-funding there is no way that Abraham can counter-report him in order to harass him!

Abe, baby, if you present yourself as “a scientist” – as you do throughout your talk – then it is as a scientist that you will be judged and found lamentably wanting. You may like to get your apology and retraction in early: for I am a Christian too, and will respond kindly to timely repentance.

My comment: Don't try to play with the big boys, you little bedwetter! Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, curer of HIV, MS and the common cold, victor of the Falklands War and vanquisher of Al Gore, is a real scientist, something you can never aspire to be!

The stratosphere is cooling!

2010-06-03T11:55:00.000-07:00

Look at the amazing figure at the top! This may very well be the most important figure displayed in this eminent blog ever, and we have already had some pretty important figures! The figure comes from the Remote Sensing Systems webpage. The different curves show how the temperature changes since 1980 according to satellite measurements at different heights in the atmosphere. The people from Remote Sensing systems say that the curves are from different channels, and where in the atmosphere those channels are can be seen in the figure to the right. Beware, the curves of the low channels are at the top and the curves for the high channels are at the bottom in the figure to the top of the figure to the left.

Look very carefully at the curves. The curve for the lowest part of the atmosphere (TLT, at the top) shows an increasing temperature, ie warming. However, the curve for the highest part of the atmosphere, i.e. the stratosphere (TLS, at the bottom), shows a decreasing temperature, ie cooling!

I'm going to repeat that again, because this is probably the most important thing I have ever written on this blog. The lower atmosphere is warming, but the higher atmosphere is cooling!

How could this be, if we have global warming? Then all the atmosphere should be warming! Anything else would be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law! I could explain that with complicated mathematical formulas, but then you, dear reader, couldn't follow my train of thoughts anymore. It suffices to say that one is not allowed to violate natural laws. If the so-called climate scientists new as much about physics and mathematics as I do, they would also understand that, but they don't.

So it is apparent that Earth is not warming. We only have a redistribution of temperature in the atmosphere. This is an incontestable fact. But how could this be? The explanation is quite simple - an increase in the force of gravity. When gravity increases, the air atoms are drawn towards the ground, and that results in a higher air pressure. According to the ideal gas law, higher pressure leads to higher temperature. As there are fewer air atoms at the top of the atmosphere, there is a lower pressure and hence a lower temperature. It is all quite elementary if one only is aware of the basics laws of physics. Unfortunately, the so-called climate scientists are not, and their so-called climate models are completely and utterly useless; mere figments of their twisted imaginations!

But do we have independent evidence that the force of gravity is increasing? Yes, indeed we do. We are the evidence ourselves, each time we step up on the bathroom scale. Most people are actually getting heavier and heavier. Chances are that you are getting heavier and heavier, dear reader! Admit it! The graph to the right shows how the people in the Netherlands are getting heavier (percent of men (green), women (red) and both (blue) with a BMI of 30 or more). The same pattern can be seen in other countries. This can only be explained by an increase in the force of gravity. It clearly cannot have anything to do with a minuscle increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide atoms in the atmosphere, as the global warming scammers would like us to believe. Therefore, it has to be the force of gravity.

A bove maiore discit arare minor.

The Climate Scum Want Poor People to Stay Poor!

2010-06-02T12:17:00.001-07:00

An absolutely terrifying consequence of Fat Al's Global Warming Fraud (FAGWF) is that it condemns poor people, like the starving girls in the picture, to eternal poverty. Our Western civilization is based on the use of fossil fuels. Without coal and oil, we wouldn't have industry, wealth, democracy, freedom, television, airplanes and the Renaissance. We would all live in caves and grunt, like they do in third world countries.

But the global warmistas want to forbid the poor people in the poor countries from using fossil fuels. In that way, they will never become our equals, but will remain poor and backward. How many countless millions of poor people will starve to death because of Fat Al's anti-oil and anti-coal policies (see picture)? What will they put in the tanks of their cars? Maize? Sugarcane? Watermelons? What will they then eat?

Some hypocritical global warming fraudsters might object: but we only want people in the rich world to stop using fossil fuels! What breath-taking hypocrisy! What boundless arrogance! These people want to give all the fossil fuels to third-world kleptocrats, who only want to steal from the rich countries. To prevent only the rich countries from using fossil fuels is communism, no more no less! We in the rich countries deserve to be rich, and to use fossil fuels. We have not been lazy and stupid - we are clever and work hard and are in general morally and intellectually superior. And our wealth actually helps the poor countries. We serve as role models, we give them something to aspire to. If we would stop using fossil fuels and become poor like medieval peasants living off turnips and rotting pig carcasses, who would then show the poor people in the poor countries what to do? Who would they then emulate? The North Koreans?

No, for the benefit of the poor people, we all need to use as much fossil fuels as possible. Only in that way can the world develop towards universal wealth and prosperity!

Semper inops quicumque cupit.

The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate scum

2010-05-27T10:06:00.000-07:00

Some of you may have heard about the Dunning-Kruger effect. Dunning-Kruger was a psychologist who discovered that "people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it." I will restate that in plain language so you dear reader can understand it: morons tend to believe that they are right.

The Dunning-Kruger effect can be observed on a massive scale in the climate debate. The warmists are so sure they are right, but they are wrong. This is an undisputable expression for the Dunning-Kruger effect (and for their hatred for mankind). We humble skeptics, on the other hand, claim that we don’t know anything about how the climate works, and that it is hubris to think that our diminutive emissions of a trace gas can control the climate. We are competent and our metacognitive abilities are excellent.

Al’Gore, the climate terrorist, believes he knows everything about the climate. He has even made a movie about it, called An Inconvenient Truth. The movie was so riddled with lies that he got sentenced to prison in England (see photographic evidence above). Unfortunately, he managed to escape, probably by bribing the prison guards with his “carbon tax” billions. But does in really make sense to believe more in the slick politician Al’Gore than in the founder of the Weather Channel, distinguished TV meteorologist John Coleman? This is what the experienced weather expert John Coleman has to say:

"Does carbon dioxide cause a warming of the atmosphere? The proponents of global warming pin their whole piece on that, The compound carbon dioxide makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere. That's about twice as what there were in the atmosphere in the time we started burning fossil fuels, so it's gone up, but it's still a tiny compound. So how can that tiny trace compound have such a significant effect on temperature? My position is it can't. It doesn't, and the whole case for global warming is based on a fallacy."

I couldn’t have said it any better myself. But does Al’Gore listen to Colemann? No, Al’Gore continues to believe in his own global warming fraud instead. Al’Gore is a veritable poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger effect. And he thinks he won the American election 2000 as well. His incompetence robs him of the metacognitive ability to understand he is wrong! We’ll see what the court says when Colemann and 30,000 other top scientists sue Al’Gore! Then he'll go to prison again!

The so-called “climate scientists” in their ivory towers, playing with their computer games … sorry models, are also convinced they are right. I’m talking about Mann and Hansen and Jones and the rest of the CRU cabal. What do they know about the lives of real people? What do they know about real climates? Not a jota. Trust me, not a jota. The average Joe Sixpack, who is out there in the sun or the rain or the snow everyday, carrying my golf clubs, knows a hundred times more about the climate than the scientists in their ivory lab coats do! Still the latter want to control every aspect of our lives. They are truly Dunning-Kruger sufferers, and the rest of us will also suffer in the most gruesome manners if we listen to them!

So the next time somebody tells you that we all have to stop living in order to prevent Earth from warming, you can respond: "You only say that because of the Dunning-Kruger effect! You are wrong but your incompetence robs you of the metacognitive ability to realize it!" And if you find it hard to remember that sentence, then you can write it down on a piece of paper.

Aliquando et insanire jucundum est!

Climate-gate or Climate-loo

2010-05-22T11:36:00.000-07:00

I have been applying my considerable intellectual gifts to the question about the best names for the almost infinite series of scandals of Al Gore and his ICCCP lackeys. The use of the suffix "-gate" has become very popular - it is a reference to the Watergate scandal in USA a couple of years ago. Thus we have Climate-gate, Himalayas-gate, Dutch-gate, Holland-gate, Netherlands-gate, Duck-gate and so on.

While "gate" most certaintly works well for an American audience, it is less optimal for other countries. After all, Watergate was an internal US affair. In addition, it was just a matter of somebody breaking into an office and discovering a scandal in some letters. It does not at all make justice to the magnitude of the global warming scam: a world-wide all-encompassing plot to enslave and dominate every country and every human being on the face of planet Earth.

I want to propose to base the names of these scandals on another and truly momentous event: the defeat of the French Communist Emperor Napoleon at the battle of Waterloo (see picture above)! Let me explain as clearly as possible. Watergate gave us Climate-gate. Following the same pattern, Waterloo gives us Climate-loo. And for some of the other scandals: Himalayas-loo, Dutch-loo, Holland-loo, Netherlands-loo, Duck-loo and so on for an endless sequence of loos!

Such names will surely make people aware of the great significance and seriousness of these events!

Atqui, e lotio est.

Gates galore

2010-05-21T03:33:00.001-07:00

Numerous like sand in the desert are the different scandals that have been shaking the global warming establishment the past year. A very clever person came up with attaching the suffix "-gate" to each one of these outrageousities, in rembemberance of the Watergate scandal when Nixon (famous for his enviromentalist inclinations) broke into the Republican headquarters.

The current avalanche of gates started with Climate-gate, and then it went on from there, like a card-house falling apart when you torch it with napalm. Woossh! For your benefit, I have compiled the most comprehensive list of Climate gates on the Internet. It includes past, present and future gates.

Remember that one single gate was enough to end the presidency of Nixon. Then imagine the unstoppable force of the more than 150 gates (including sub-gates) I have listed here. I even add more of them as I write this. Anybody who sees this list must think: "Oh boy, how may gates! Global warming cannot be true!" If enough people read this list, we will win the war against climate science! Then we will be the consensus! It is simple blog science logic.

Hannibal ante portas!

Africa-gate

Alaska-gate

An Inconventient Truth-gate

Amazon-gate

America-gate

Antarctic-fortress-gate

Antarctic sea-gate

Asia-gate

Asphalt-gate

Australia-gate

Bangladesh-gate

Barbecue-gate

Bedwetting-gate

Big butt Gore-gate

Bondage-gate

Boot-cleaning manual-gate

Bill-gates (Ha ha ha, this is only a joke. And a precaution.)

Blubber-gate

Bull-gate

Censorship-gate

Centaur-gate

China-gate

Chicken-gate

Climate Camp-gate

Climate-gate, with sub-gates:
1. Trick-gate
2. Hide the decline-gate
3. Travesty-gate
4. Harry-gate
5. Harry's brother-gate
6. Harry's sister-gate
7. Harry's wife-gate
8. Harry's wife's lover-gate
9. Fudge-gate
10. Chocolate-gate
11. Beer-gate
12. Evil idol-gate
13. Missing emails-gate
14. Smoke-gate

Cow-gate

Crack cocaine for paleoclimatologists-gate

CRU data deletion-gate

CRU human sacrifice-gate

Crumbs in the bed-gate

Death star defense-gate

Dinosaur-gate

Dirty underwear-gate

Dog-ate it-gate

Dog peed on carpet-gate

Discernable influence-gate

Drought-gate

Duck-gate

Dutch-gate

Europe-gate

Fat Gore-gate

Five-star WWF-gate

Finland-gate

Flooded house-gate

FOI-gate

Football-gate

Fraud-gate

Fungus-gate

Gatekeeping-gate

GISS Metar-gate

Gol-gate

Gore refuses to debate Monckton-gate

Gore is fat-gate

Gore private jet-gate

Gore weighs a lot-gate

Godzilla-gate

Golden gate-gate

Golf club-gate

Greenpeace-gate

Greens too yellow to admit they are red-gate

Hamster-gate

Hansen 1930s hot-gate and 1988 hearings

Herring-gate

Himalayas-gate

Hitler Jugend(jewish)-gate

Hockey-stick-gate

Hole in my bucket-gate

Holland-gate

Holy cow-gate

Horror fish-gate

Horse-head-gate

Hurricane-gate

ICCCP mind control-gate

ICCCP and M Jackson-gate

Ice-gate

Iceland-gate

Islam-gate

Janet Jackson Super Bowl-gate

Jesus Paper-gate

Kitten-gate

Lizard-gate

Kilimanjaro-gate

Lost sock-gate

Malaria-gate

Manchurian candy-gate

McIntyre is not treated with enough respect-gate

Mega-mansion-gate

Media-gate

Met Office computer-gate

Minotaur-gate

Netherlands-gate

Nosepicking-gate

NASA/NCDC bad data-gate

NASA fake email leak-gate

NASA intentionally crash their own satellite-gate

NASA booze and hookers-gate

News-gate

New Zealand-gate

NOAA adjustment-gate

NOAA/GISS data selection-gate

NOAA/GISS do something with their data-gate

NYT alarmism-gate

Obesity-gate

Outrageous-gate

Overpeck-gate

Oxbourgh-gate

Pacman-gate

Pachauri-gate

Peer-review-gate 1

Peer-review-gate 2

Pig-gate

Pokemon-gate

Polar bear-gate

Porn(hard)-gate

Porn(soft)-gate

Press-gate

Prison-gate

Propaganda-gate

Rahmstorf-gate

Reef-gate

Reptilians from space-gate

Revelle-gate

Russia-gate

Satanistic rites in ICCCP compound-gate

Scam-gate

Scandal in Bohemia-gate

Sinatra-gate

Solar-gate

Soviet-gate

Spears-gate

Stationery-gate

Stasi-gate

Stern-gate

Sting-gate

Stop reading this now-gate

Student dissertation-gate

Surface stations-gate

Teddy bear-gate

Teletubbies-gate

Terrorist-gate

Thurman-gate

Titanic sinking-gate

Toad-gate

Travolta-gate

UNEP-gate

Universe-gate

UN natural disasters-gate

UN supernatural disasters-gate

Uncut toe nails-gate

Ursus-gate

Venus-gate

Volcano ash plume-gate

Watermelon-gate

What the f**k-gate

Whitewater-gate

Wide waist Gore-gate

Will it never end-gate

World-gate

X-box 360 gate

Yamal-gate

Zebra-gate

Fourth International Conference on Climate Change

2010-05-18T10:47:00.000-07:00

I'm having a wonderful time here in Chicago at the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change, organized by the Heartland Institute in order to ensure independence from warmofascist politicians. It is truly great to be here with my peers. Well, not literally peers, except for Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Curer of HIV, MS and the Common Cold, Victor of the Falklands war and Vanquisher of Al Gore. But there are plenty of real intellectual heavy-weights here: James Inhofe, Marc Morano, James Delingpole, Anthony Watts, Willis Eschenbach (Independent Climate Researcher), Ian Plimer, and the ever present S. Fred Singer! With such a collection of luminaries, the final nail in the coffin of global warming will be driven in with much force and determination!

My own presentation about the asphalt effect on Venus was received with much enthusiasm. Another favourite presentation was when Marc Morano, the bane of Kerry, had an actor dressing up as Phil Jones (nice sweater) and then demonstrated how to kick him while he was down! Then Marc produced a whip and went on to flog the poor man. Oh, how the audience cheered! It really reminded me of how we used to train the Polish laborers when I was a boy in Prussia. Sweet childhood memories. James Delingpole, one of the worlds foremost journalists who is right about everything, told a terrifying tale about the nauseating emails sent by a disgusting eco-fascist organisation to Conservative candidates asking about their positions on climate change. Such behaviors must be stopped in order to save democracy from the eco-fascists! A few of the presentations were very complicated and hard to follow though, in particular Dennings "Debunking Common Myths About Global Warming" (PPT), but the title was very good.

As usual, no bed-wetting warmists dared to turn up. They know they don't stand a chance when they cannot hide their decline behind their "peer-reviewed" and the ICCCP bureaucracy. What a pathetic bunch of cowards they are! The suckers actually have to pay to go to their own boring warmist conferences. And fortunately we were spared the assaults of the Jewish Hitler jugend.

The conference gifts are great: cigarettes, and a nice tea-party tool box! When I come home, I will throw my own tea party. I'm really looking forward to some more nice Heartland conferences this year: about the dioxin scam, the asbestos scam, the DDT scam and of course the tobacco scam!

Ubi fumus, ibi ignis.

Achtung: It has been pointed out to me that Denning's presentation was not about debunking the bedwetting warmists' myths about global warming, but the skeptical myths. Do not read it! Mr Denning is a warmista agent that has shamefully infiltrated the conference in order to spread the lies of Al Gore!

Correlation - what correlation? Part II

2010-05-10T11:45:00.000-07:00

DenialDepot, which has been dubbed "the #1 Blog Science Blog Of the Millennium", has a must-read post which discusses my previous post "Correlation - what correlation?".
DenialDepot wisely writes:
I figure that linking to other people's posts is a good way of amplifying the noise and increasing my own post count with little work on my own part. It's also not my fault if it's wrong. I guess I could even start posting News Articles verbatim, adding just one original sentence with my interpretation of what it all means. My post count should go through the roof if I do that. Which is surely just what the World needs and will reinforce the status of this blog as the #1 Blog Science Blog Of the Millennium.

Let the echo chamber resound with the truth about the climate scum!

Natura abhorret a vacuo.