Archive for Global Warming

The Climate Change “Consensus” Lie

globull-warming.jpg

Old NFO posted the image above the other day. I stole it from there.

I found a good item via The Patriot Post that completely debunks the claim that an overwhelming number of scientists agree that Global Climate Change (can’t call it “warming” anymore) is due to anthropogenic activity. The article “Debunking the ‘97% of Climate Scientists Agree’ Claim” contains the following damning passage:

It appears that Cook et al. decided to compare only those scientists who had strong opinions. If that is the case, the first two categories represent scientists who believe man is causing all or most of the warming (986), while those in categories 6 and 7 believe man is causing none or almost none (24). This ratio is about 97%. But the most important result of this study is that almost 8,000 had no opinion or were uncertain. So much for the 97%.

Why were there only 24 papers published by skeptics? We found out in 2009, when 22,000 email exchanges between senior meteorologists in the U.S. and Europe were released. Many of the emails were published by Steven Mosher and Thomas Fuller in “Climategate: The Crutape Letters” (nQuire Services, 2010). We learned the following things from this scandal:

Those promoting man-made global warming:

Controlled the meteorology and climatology journals in the U.S.;
Controlled non-meteorological science publication (Nature, Science, etc.);
Controlled Wikipedia;
Manipulated data;
Demonized skeptics.

Those of us who have studied, albeit casually, have determined the whole climate bugaboo is a hoax. It is only intended to cripple freedom and prosperity in the west and nothing more. There is a special warm place awaiting those who knowingly promote these falsehoods.

Comments (2)

“The Science Guy?” Really?

The SunJordan Candler and Joe Bastardi each mentioned Bill Nye in their two articles about climate change. Candler wrote about “Shining the Light on Climate Science” and Bastardi wrote about “Fact-Checking Bill Nye.” Both articles took the “science” guy to task for his blatant misrepresentations of the facts concerning climate change. I used “scary” quotes in the last sentence to illustrate that Nye is a science suppressor rather than his science guy moniker that he has worn for so many years. His tactic is to attempt to silence the discussion rather than debating the facts.

Image: Indisputably, the major cause of Earth’s climate variations

In Candler’s report, he quotes Bastardi as follows:

In an email to The Patriot Post, meteorologist Joe Bastardi responds: “I have not read enough of the study to comment on aspects I have not researched. But given my stated position that the sun is the conductor of the climatic orchestra of the oceans, stochastic events and the very design of the system, it would make sense that the sun should be considered as the source of climatic variations rather than the increase of one molecule of CO2 out of every 10 thousand molecules of air over a 100-year period.” The lesson here is that man’s footprint isn’t just relatively small, it’s minuscule. Perhaps it’s not the skeptics who are, as Nye says, “denying the evidence,” but rather those who want to silence the discussion.

Both authors referenced here are contributors to The Patriot Post.

Comments (2)

Global Warming Lies Exposed (Again)

bullsh1t.jpgIn an effort to refute findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that backed off of the anthropogenic climate change claims, sources now tell us that our own National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) flat-out lied about earlier findings in a report. A retired NOAA scientist recently came out to expose that the NOAA report was “doctored” to give the impression that the earlier IPCC findings were in error and should be disregarded.

Now that the Trump administration is in charge, Texas Congressman Lamar Smith justifiably has launched an investigation into the false report. Without the previous administration and it’s biased #fakenews climate change agenda, perhaps Congressman Smith’s effort can gain some traction.

From Thomas Gallatin writing for The Patriot Post:

In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledged what some in the climate science community had begun calling a “hiatus” in global warming — that “the rate of warming over the past 15 years … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951.” This acknowledgement by the IPCC threatened to derail the alarmist narrative of human activity being the primary cause of global warming espoused by many on the Left. And indeed it was, as skeptics of anthropogenic global warming used the IPCC’s admission as further evidence to support their questioning of the politically correct narrative.

Fast forward two years to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) release of a report, known as the “Karl study,” which stated flatly, “There is no discernable (statistical or otherwise) decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century and the first 15 years of the 21st century.” The report further asserted that IPCC’s conclusion about a “climate warming hiatus” was “no longer valid.” This report conveniently supported Barack Obama’s climate alarmist agenda and his dubious claims of the science being “settled,” even though at the time there were several government scientists who raised objections over the reliability of the report, claiming the data was cooked.

This prompted Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee to launch an inquiry into the claims of manipulation of climate data and records by officials at NOAA. However, much of the committee’s efforts were frustrated over Obama’s last year in office due to NOAA officials’ refusal to comply with records requests even upon the issuance of subpoenas.

Over the weekend, a recently retired top scientist from NOAA, Dr. John Bates, alleged that the Karl study report applied questionable data in order “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush[ed] to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.” Rep. Smith responded to the latest revelation by saying that it “justified” the committee’s investigation into the matter. He added that, under the Trump administration, he trusts they will be able to get to the bottom of the matter.

[More]

Comments (2)

The Degeneration of Scientific Processes

science.jpg

I found this graphic over at Ace of Spades the other day. Sadly it depicts yet another degeneration in processes as a result of being constantly under attack by progressives and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself).

I do remember from 8th grade science the process for advancing a hypothesis through observation, experimentation and finalizing a theory and then retesting the theory via modifications to the original hypothesis. Those fundamentals have, sadly, been abandoned by many of those in the scientific community in favor of political payoffs in the form of grants to obfuscate facts and formulate fake results.

The graphic above is signed @BiffSpackle, who, as far as I can tell, is on the correct side of the political spectrum according to the linked Twitter® feed.

Comments (2)

Forty Years Plus of Climate Change Alarmism

1977-78.jpg

Joe Bastardi, writing in The Patriot Post reminds us of the perpetual misinterpretation of weather phenomena by the media and other Greenbats. This article discusses the tendency of alarmists to blame any and all weather phenomena on anthropogenic activity. Forty years ago, they were discussing a new Ice Age, but as Joe notes, they want us to forget about that:

First It Was No Snow and Cold. Now It’s More Snow and Cold?

I will keep this short. The climate change (AKA global warming) alarmists are now understanding that blocking over the North Pole is the inevitable result of long-term oceanic and solar fluctuations (or at least I hope they are). However, in an effort to again push their missive (fear of a cold, snowy winter), they are pre-blaming the shift in the polar vortex on their ideas. This is rich because, in the winters of the 1970s, when it got very warm relative to average over the poles, we had people warning that an ice age was coming (of course they want you to forget that).

[Read the entire short article.]

Image: 500 millibar world chart showing relative temperatures; red is hot, violet is cold.

Comments off

The Earth is Warm Now - So What?

Climate Trend

The chart above shows mean world-wide air temperature since the last glacial period. Other than the Ice Age 13,000 years ago, the trends above and below the average of 15°C have been slight, seldom exceeding one degree variation in either direction. Moreover, the vertical scale is confined between 10 and 17°C which tends to exaggerate the excursions from normal. If the vertical scale were to be set such that the maximum (maybe 55°C) and minimum (perhaps -40°C) observed surface air temperatures were at the top and bottom of the chart, one would be hard pressed to see a ripple in the average temperature curve being plotted.

Looking at the chart, we observe that the current trend is above the average line by a fraction of a degree. We also observe warm and cool periods taking place way before men had fossil fuel-burning machines. What caused the warm periods roughly 2, 4 and 7 thousand years ago? All three of those plus the medieval warm period meet or exceed the current warming trend being blamed on anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

The logical conclusion from all of this is that the climate and air temperatures do change over time, but there is no connection between anthropogenic activity and temperature trends. I guess that makes us who apply logic to the argument to be considered “Climate Change Deniers” even though we admit that the climate does change.

I read a post by Joe Bastardi in which he presents what he calls a “Short Summation of My Climate Position.” I am quoting his assessment of this chart and the labels being assigned by the lefties when referring to us “deniers.”

In fact, it’s quite evident that not only does the climate change naturally, but the warmer it is, the better. See the chart above. Earlier warm periods, which dwarf today’s warmth, were climate optimums. How is it that previous warmer times were referred to as climate optimums? Let’s look at the definition of optimum.

Used as an adjective, optimum means this: most conducive to a favorable outcome; best.

As a noun, this: the most favorable conditions or level for growth, reproduction, or success.

Will the term “optimum” have to be adjusted, or will the temperature need to be adjusted down to fit the current missive of impending disaster?

The “climate change denier” label is a straw man argument that is designed to isolate, demonize and destroy people with false labels.

The whole argument as to what is best for us going forward is simple.

1.) How much is man responsible for variances that were previously exclusively natural?

In my opinion, most of the warmth today is likely natural given the tiny amounts of CO2 relative to the entire system, of which the oceans have 1000x the heat capacity and are the great thermostat of the planet, taking centuries of action and reaction to reach where they are now.

2.) Is this worth the draconian reactions that will handcuff the greatest experiment in freedom and prosperity in history, the United States of America?

3.) This question may arise, if one wants: Would not the cost of adaptation to such things, rather than trying to correct what has always happened in the past anyway, be a sounder fiscal response?

Let’s remember, our own EPA administrator said all this would save .01 degrees Celsius in 30 years, and that it was mostly an example for the rest of the world. Color me skeptical that the rest of the world is going to follow; instead, it will take advantage of repercussions on the American way of life that this causes. Not every nation is our friend, after all, if you actually look at the real world. No one is against any form of clean, safe, cheap energy. I am against economic suicide like we have seen in Europe, which will then handcuff generations for the chance of economic peace and prosperity.

Comments (4)

Global Warming Wealth Redistribution

bucks.pngIncreased CO2 in the atmosphere has never been proven to cause anything other than enhanced benefits for life, both flora and fauna. The drumbeat from the warmists is steady and their support from the media makes the feeble-minded proletariat all the more convinced that glaciers will melt and coastal cities will be destroyed. You know, the sky is falling, the end is near, etc.

What the climate change believers don’t know is that the whole climate change scenario is not now and never was intended to save the planet. Simply put, it is global wealth redistribution from rich countries to poor ones, while lining the pockets of UN and other bureaucrats. In fact, an IPCC official, Ottmar Edenhofer, a co-chair of the IPCC, admitted it is about wealth and not climate in his own words:

The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. … First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

I read this quote in a short article by E. Calvin Beisner entitled “Climate Change’s Great Legacy: International Wealth Redistribution,” available from The Patriot Post.

Comments off

« Previous entries

-->