Wednesday, 14 March 2012

Et tu, Fred?

Just like Brute betrayed Ceasar, so has Singer betrayed
climate skepticism.
Gallia omnia est divisa in partes tres. All of Gaul is divided into three parts.

This quote by Julius Caesar begins a new essay by Fred Singer in the American Thinker. Singer, a longstanding opponent to the AGW scam, writes that like Gaul, the global warming debate is dvided into three parts: the deniers, the skeptics and the warmists. The title of the essay is:
"Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name"

The term "climate deniers", as you know, was invented by the econazi Sturmabteilung-Hitler-jugend global warming fascists in order to make sound scientific skepticism appear equivalent to holocaust denial.

So who is Fred so ignobly calling "climate deniers"? He writes:

Now let me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics -- i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.
Then there is another group of deniers who accept the existence of the greenhouse effect but argue about the cause and effect of the observed increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. One subgroup holds that CO2 levels were much higher in the 19th century, so there really hasn't been a long-term increase from human activities. They even believe in a conspiracy to suppress these facts. Another subgroup accepts that CO2 levels are increasing in the 20th century but claims that the source is release of dissolved CO2 from the warming ocean. In other words, they argue that oceans warm first, which then causes the CO2 increase. In fact, such a phenomenon is observed in the ice-core record, where sudden temperature increases precede increases in CO2. While this fact is a good argument against the story put forth by Al Gore, it does not apply to the 20th century: isotopic and other evidence destroys their case.
Another subgroup simply says that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is so small that they can't see how it could possibly change global temperature. But laboratory data show that CO2 absorbs IR radiation very strongly. Another subgroup says that natural annual additions to atmospheric CO2 are many times greater than any human source; they ignore the natural sinks that have kept CO2 reasonably constant before humans started burning fossil fuels. Finally, there are the claims that major volcanic eruptions produce the equivalent of many years of human emission from fossil-fuel burning. To which I reply: OK, but show me a step increase in measured atmospheric CO2 related to a volcanic eruption.
 Yes, those that Singer so disgracefully labels "deniers" are those who are truly skeptical to AGW. These are the genuine skeptics. Singer calls himself a skeptic, but he really believe in central parts of the warmist dogma.

Fred Singer, if you are going to combat witches, you cannot run around with a broom and a black cat. There is no such thing as selling only half your of soul to the devil. A bird cannot fly with only half a wing.

If we concede that some of the things the eco-fascists claim are true, how is Joe Sixpack going to remember what is true and what is false? Joe Sixpack is only going to be confused.You are playing into the hands of the warmists, Fred.
And who the hell are the "Us Skeptics"  you think you are speaking for? A small bunch of fence-sitters who think they are so smart they can outsmart the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Without us real skeptics, we the doubters of every tenet of the AGW religion, you are nothing, Fred. You are nothing, nothing, nothing!

You are free to believe in this AWG nonsense, Fred, if you so wish, but I'm warning you: don't come and tell us what to think! We are entitled to our own facts! That is what skepticism and science really is about.

Luckily, the people that comment Fred's essay are almost uniformly against it. They are only common folks, but they are much more well informed than Dr Singer. They are the true scientists and the real skeptics. It is Dr Singer, not them, that make us real skeptics a bad name.

This is what some of these good people write.

Fred, if I'm a denier for concluding that there's a conspiracy to suppress facts, then put me in that category. I think that the Climategate 'hide the decline' email proved that beyond a reasonable doubt.

This article seems a bit naive. When one realizes that the warmistas are not telling the truth, yet they are praised and rewarded by political allies, then you must conclude the whole theory is a scam and discount it. Now if independently one starts engaging in real science and starts proving a connection between CO2 and temperatures, then we can then start engaging in a real scientific process which must include individual verification.
The author doesn't address the common conclusion that the climate change kerfuffle is more religious than scientific. The Gaia worshippers are hellbent to protect and embrace the earth and its environment. Funny thing, one massive explosion of a volcano can do more damage in a fortnight than hundreds of factories spewing CO2 into the environment for a number of years!
How come all these wizards of smart still can't even predict the weather 3 days out? Put me on the denier side.
I think that there is a Carbon Dioxide warming effect that had been found in labs but not in the field. I hope that make me a skeptic.
I also think that the climate is changing every second. It is never the same.
What I really deny is:
1) Politicians can control the temperature of the atmosphere, or the troposphere, or the climate of this planet.
2) The climate of the whole globe changed (at the same time) in the twentieth century.
3) Any climate changes which have happened in two continents at the same time have been shown to have the same manmade cause in both continents.
I am sure that events beyond the solar system change our climate much more than humans can change our climate.
Supporters of global warming love to write about the diversity of interests on the subject. They talk about levels of agreement like
"warmists" and "deniers".
Yet, when it comes to financing their beliefs, where's the diversity? They want everyone to pay an equal part in support of their cause, whether you believe in it or not. If they want to put money down that hole, let them form a non-profit and donate their own money to it.
No man can undo what God has done!Sorry Mr.Singer but if you think man can destroy this planet you are totally wrong! I seem to remember that during the last couple million years our earth has has experienced massive volcanic activity,massive flooding and other catastrophic we are.We are still here.All you warmistas which you are one need to take a closer look at yourselves because your God complex is really getting tiresome!One man can kill another.But no man can kill the human race!And no one but nature(God) can undo what nature(God)has done!
P.S.One super volcano eruption spews more pollutants than all the cars,trucks,boats,airplanes combined have produced in the history of the world!!
What a safe position, Dr. Singer. This is the typical PC approach - both sides have their extremists. You probably think the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto had their extremists as well.
Lets finish with a funny picture:

"Who believes that CO2 causes global warming?
Then the science is settled. Sehr gut, mein Volk!"

Monday, 12 March 2012

Now at WUWT: Astrologer refutes global warming from chlorofluorocarbons

It is always nice to see a real scientist from one of the hard sciences take on the pseudoscientific superstition of "global climate warming change".  Therefore, the post 'A view of climate “on the ground” from a reporter who was there at the beginning' on WUWT by distinguished astrologer Theodore White is a must read.  I quote:
But I digress – in short, when I wrote pieces on the climate, I refused to write on the theory that chlorofluorocarbons were the sole cause of worldwide warming because that had never been proved. Now, though there was evidence that the use of aerosols were clearly evident in the upper atmosphere; the data did not support that this was the cause of the fear-mongering on ozone holes which was all the rage in the climate community of the late 1980s and 1990s.
Follow the money pushing the ideological AGW lie. If one examines climate science funding from 1986 to 1996 and then from 1996 to the present – you may find some amazing numbers.
Incredible amounts – increasing yearly and wasted on every bigger and more expensive computers to run models. Careerists who cannot forecast seasonal weather were making things up (and began to alter weather data on purpose) while spending lavishly on computers pushing the AGW ideology – all at the public’s great expense.
Still, by 1989, the AGW science did not make sense to me in light that it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Which I remind everyone – remains in effect to this very day.

Anyhow, it did not seem to matter to Wirth’s office, Hansen, or the growing careerists at NCAR and NOAA; because whomever was pushing ‘man-made global warming’ on the United States, were also doing it at the international level too.

My view was that it was a conspiracy right from the start to bamboozle the world on the lie of anthropogenic global warming sandbagging much of the mainstream media, the markets and the educational system to not believe their own eyes and ears.

With such high-quality contributions, it is no wonder that Whats Up with Watts won the 2012 Weblog Award for Best Science or Technology Weblog.