Saturday, 25 December 2010

Booker on climate change and evolution

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.

Sunday, 19 December 2010

What does Velikovsky and climate skeptics have in common?

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.

Friday, 17 December 2010

Criminals illegally steal FOX email about AGW scam

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.

Sunday, 12 December 2010

The Lord Monckton censored at Cancun

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.

Thursday, 25 November 2010

Greenland not so green in medieval times

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 -

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

Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant

Thursday, 18 November 2010

Fun at WUWT

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!

Wednesday, 17 November 2010

Another vicious attack on Wegman

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.

Monday, 15 November 2010

The Windmill Mafia in Corleone

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.

Friday, 12 November 2010

160 years of cooling

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.

Sunday, 7 November 2010

Curry agrees with me

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.

Saturday, 30 October 2010

Keeping Science Out of the Political Process

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!

Wednesday, 27 October 2010

Happy Climate Fools Day!

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).

Sunday, 24 October 2010

Secret climate conspiracy meeting in Lisbon

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!

Wednesday, 20 October 2010

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

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

Monday, 18 October 2010

Great Scandal in First IPCC report

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

Friday, 15 October 2010

I'm really angry with the APS!

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.

Wednesday, 13 October 2010

Historical moment: Emeritus Professor single-handedly destroys AGW dogma

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

Sunday, 10 October 2010

Baseless plagiarism accusations against Hockey Stick slayer Wegman

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?”

Friday, 8 October 2010

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

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.

Tuesday, 5 October 2010

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

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.

Sunday, 26 September 2010

Sudden cooling in 1990's discovered!

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.

Friday, 24 September 2010

In which religions scientists must believe

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).

Wednesday, 22 September 2010

Standford study: CO2 emissions are not a problem

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

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.