Climategate 3.0 is in progress. }--- link
The government-scientist media complex has proven strong. But this, along with the debunking of the re-bunking of the hockey stick and with the IPCC itself noting that temperatures (data!) are looking to fall out of the 95% certainty band of alarmist predictions, this thing really does look to come crashing down.
Still, if the media continues to refuse to cover this, there are masses out there who have adopted it as their religion who will remain unconvinced.
Ran into an exchange on facebook where a friend said her son had to hide behind her during certain parts of the movie "Ice Age" ... cute enough.
But another friend of hers then commented "[He] knows climate change is scary ... and REAL."
We pray in Gore's name, forever and ever, amen. (eyes roll)
Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Monday, March 18, 2013
I'm sure the "science" will still be "settled™"
Sooner or later the IPCC was going to have to deal with the fact that it's been over a decade since the earth has shown any warming to speak of.
As I pointed out with historical vs predictive charts a few years back, what we've seen climatologically is not out of the ordinary... I'd say by any stretch of the imagination, but some people's imaginations have proven extraordinarily elastic of late.
Looks like they're thinking about it.
As I pointed out with historical vs predictive charts a few years back, what we've seen climatologically is not out of the ordinary... I'd say by any stretch of the imagination, but some people's imaginations have proven extraordinarily elastic of late.
Looks like they're thinking about it.
A version of the graph appears in a leaked draft of the IPCC’s landmark Fifth Assessment Report due out later this year. It comes as leading climate scientists begin to admit that their worst fears about global warming will not be realised.
Academics are revising their views after acknowledging the miscalculation. Last night Myles Allen, Oxford University’s Professor of Geosystem Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century.
But he now says: ‘The odds have come down,’ – adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower.
Prof Allen says higher estimates are now ‘looking iffy’.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
I Made a New Word
alwarmist \ˈalˈwärm-ist\ - A Global Warming alarmist.
I particularly like that the first syllable is "Al".
I particularly like that the first syllable is "Al".
Thursday, February 02, 2012
"Scientifically Proven"
While it is heartening to see more and more AGW skeptics crop up, we really need to make sure we understand the issues and where the Chicken Littles have it wrong.
Saw a post on facebook on a conservative page saying: "it has been scientifically proven that we are not suffering from global warming".
Well, no, it hasn't. And except for the word "suffering", that statement is just flat out incorrect. Nothing of the sort has been "scientifically proven", just as it hasn't been "scientifically proven" that there has been global warming, or especially that we've had anything to do with it if it has.
The data says that we've warmed slightly in the last 150 years. Of course, even much of the data is speculative and/or not "scientifically" controlled measurement. The "warming" has been so little it could be a figment of our data. As a matter of fact, what climategate has shown us, there is a bias in the AGW community toward warmer data, and "corrections" that make the data "warmer" -- on top of the fact that much of the data is speculative and/or not "scientifically" controlled measurement.
It's no secret that I am a strong skeptic of Global Warming, but people on our side make the same mistake they do when we say "it has been scientifically proven that we are not suffering from global warming". The statement is easily attacked and debunked and it has little to do with the issue. There is general agreement that the Earth did warm some over the last 150 or so years, although it cooled a bit in the middle of that ... but over all, yeah. Looks like we're half a degree warmer. And that means ...????
"Suffering"? That's a loaded word. Are we really "suffering"? What negative effects have we seen? What positive effects have we seen? Most of the negative "effectcs" are, in fact, speculation and predicition, and most of those are highly subjective as to whether or not they are good or bad.
The real issue is did we have anything significant to do with it, and is there anything we can do about it? The actual data seems to say "no", and "no". (And the third issue would be should we do anything about it if we could?) The computer models which are built with assumptions that CO2 causes global warming and will induce a positive enhancement and feedback loop with water vapor are of course going to show that the earth will heat up, because the assumptions are built into the models. The data does not back the models -- and the Chicken Little's know it, as evidenced by the Climategate Communiques.
The earth's climate changes. It always has. It always will. It's not some delicate system set on a thermostat where it's "supposed" to be. It does what it does. Sometimes that's good. Sometimes that's bad. And we get to judge "good" or "bad" from our own perspective.
Saw a post on facebook on a conservative page saying: "it has been scientifically proven that we are not suffering from global warming".
Well, no, it hasn't. And except for the word "suffering", that statement is just flat out incorrect. Nothing of the sort has been "scientifically proven", just as it hasn't been "scientifically proven" that there has been global warming, or especially that we've had anything to do with it if it has.
The data says that we've warmed slightly in the last 150 years. Of course, even much of the data is speculative and/or not "scientifically" controlled measurement. The "warming" has been so little it could be a figment of our data. As a matter of fact, what climategate has shown us, there is a bias in the AGW community toward warmer data, and "corrections" that make the data "warmer" -- on top of the fact that much of the data is speculative and/or not "scientifically" controlled measurement.
It's no secret that I am a strong skeptic of Global Warming, but people on our side make the same mistake they do when we say "it has been scientifically proven that we are not suffering from global warming". The statement is easily attacked and debunked and it has little to do with the issue. There is general agreement that the Earth did warm some over the last 150 or so years, although it cooled a bit in the middle of that ... but over all, yeah. Looks like we're half a degree warmer. And that means ...????
"Suffering"? That's a loaded word. Are we really "suffering"? What negative effects have we seen? What positive effects have we seen? Most of the negative "effectcs" are, in fact, speculation and predicition, and most of those are highly subjective as to whether or not they are good or bad.
The real issue is did we have anything significant to do with it, and is there anything we can do about it? The actual data seems to say "no", and "no". (And the third issue would be should we do anything about it if we could?) The computer models which are built with assumptions that CO2 causes global warming and will induce a positive enhancement and feedback loop with water vapor are of course going to show that the earth will heat up, because the assumptions are built into the models. The data does not back the models -- and the Chicken Little's know it, as evidenced by the Climategate Communiques.
The earth's climate changes. It always has. It always will. It's not some delicate system set on a thermostat where it's "supposed" to be. It does what it does. Sometimes that's good. Sometimes that's bad. And we get to judge "good" or "bad" from our own perspective.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Denying "Climate Change"
Gene Lyons asks "Why Do People Still Deny Climate Change?"
Look at the rhetorical sleight of hand here. The title "Why do people still deny climate change?" Then basically, there's been bad weather so it's high time we take "global warming" 'seriously'. And then a litany of bad weather events to "support" the idea that man is causing all of this. Yeah. There's never been floods and plagues and droughts before the industrial revolution. And the climate ran on a Honeywell thermostat. Ask the dinosaurs. And Europe in the Middle Ages vs the Dark Ages.
The charge here is that "Climate Change" (which nobody denies, climate always has and always will change) = bad weather = global warming ... and implied here is ... that man has something significant to do with it. Talk about moving the goalposts all over the place. But that's the point. They can't win the argument on facts, so they need a shifting "argument".
All the so-called "deniers" are denying is that the Chicken Little's have shown that man's activity has had any significant impact on climate -- if it can be discerned from natural variations. And the real scientific answer to that is an emphatic "no"
Look at the rhetorical sleight of hand here. The title "Why do people still deny climate change?" Then basically, there's been bad weather so it's high time we take "global warming" 'seriously'. And then a litany of bad weather events to "support" the idea that man is causing all of this. Yeah. There's never been floods and plagues and droughts before the industrial revolution. And the climate ran on a Honeywell thermostat. Ask the dinosaurs. And Europe in the Middle Ages vs the Dark Ages.
The charge here is that "Climate Change" (which nobody denies, climate always has and always will change) = bad weather = global warming ... and implied here is ... that man has something significant to do with it. Talk about moving the goalposts all over the place. But that's the point. They can't win the argument on facts, so they need a shifting "argument".
All the so-called "deniers" are denying is that the Chicken Little's have shown that man's activity has had any significant impact on climate -- if it can be discerned from natural variations. And the real scientific answer to that is an emphatic "no"
Monday, August 29, 2011
Stray Cosmic Rays
We joke about them all of the time in the IT world as the cause of all kinds of unpleasant surprises, so it's easy to forget that they are, in fact, something real and they do have their effects. And not surprisingly, they have their effects on our atmosphere.
To bring those who don't hang around these parts up to speed, I do have a degree and about 3 years of graduate study in Atmospheric Science. Weather has been an interest and hobby for me since I was about 12 years old. I've known about "global warming" since before most of you heard of it. I've worked the black body equations upon which it is based. And I follow it.
And if you have been around these parts much you know I am a skeptic as to the impact of any man-made CO2 contribution to the global carbon budget has on the Earth's temperature. And I know that very well respected figures from the early IPCC conferences complained about the politicization of the science and its impact on what went into the reports and especially what went in to the "IPCC Summary for Policy Makers" and the massive distortions and clearly intentional omissions that went out to the media and world governments.
Since the Climategate scandal, we now have clear evidence outside of hearsay that Lindzen et. al. weren't making it all up.
All this to set this up -- I had read articles on this theory of the relationship between cosmic rays and condensation nuclei and thus cloud cover, which, in fact, would have an impact on Earth's energy budget due to increased albedo.
But enough political roadblocks have been removed (probably thanks to Climategate) for an important experiment (the stuff on which science is based) to go forward. And the result will upset the followers of The Goracle.
It's nice to see Science making a play for the front seat again in this debate.
To bring those who don't hang around these parts up to speed, I do have a degree and about 3 years of graduate study in Atmospheric Science. Weather has been an interest and hobby for me since I was about 12 years old. I've known about "global warming" since before most of you heard of it. I've worked the black body equations upon which it is based. And I follow it.
And if you have been around these parts much you know I am a skeptic as to the impact of any man-made CO2 contribution to the global carbon budget has on the Earth's temperature. And I know that very well respected figures from the early IPCC conferences complained about the politicization of the science and its impact on what went into the reports and especially what went in to the "IPCC Summary for Policy Makers" and the massive distortions and clearly intentional omissions that went out to the media and world governments.
Since the Climategate scandal, we now have clear evidence outside of hearsay that Lindzen et. al. weren't making it all up.
All this to set this up -- I had read articles on this theory of the relationship between cosmic rays and condensation nuclei and thus cloud cover, which, in fact, would have an impact on Earth's energy budget due to increased albedo.
But enough political roadblocks have been removed (probably thanks to Climategate) for an important experiment (the stuff on which science is based) to go forward. And the result will upset the followers of The Goracle.
It's nice to see Science making a play for the front seat again in this debate.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Oh, Mann ... Tornadoes on the Rise. And it's AGW, of course! Not.
Also frome IceCap.
France 24 also quotes a FEMA official:
Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), also dismissed Thursday climate change as a factor in the deadly tornadoes: ‘Actually what we’re seeing is springtime,’ he said.
David Imy from the NOAA Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Oklahoma adds:
Unrelated: Benny Peiser brings or attention to news that a Global Climate Treaty Is DOA. Looks like Europe will be joining Romm out in the desert.
Note; Two other Ph.D.’s prove that a Ph.D. does not guarantee intelligence or at least that for some dogma trumps common sense in this story.
May 29, 2011
MSU Prof: “Number Of Tornadoes Has Dropped Dramatically”. NOAA:"Natural”; Mann, UCS: It’s AGW By P Gosselin on 29. Mai 2011
The German online Die Zeit here takes a look at the series of tornadoes that have ravaged the USA and conducted an interview with US meteorologist and Mississippi State University professor Grady Dixon.
Meteorology professor Grady Dixon: “Terrible mistake” to relate tornado up-tick to climate change.
Die Zeit asks the question: “Herr Dixon, is the number of such lethal storms rising in the USA?” Dixon replies:
No, to the contrary. Over the long term the number of deadly tornadoes has even dropped dramatically. [...] However, we have to expect that more people will be hit by tornadoes in the future. Not because there are more storms, but because the population is growing and suburbs and cities are expanding. In any case, 2011 is an unusually violent tornado year and it is just a fluke.”Dixon is also asked if climate change favors the creation of more tornadoes. Dixon answers:
"Research results are mixed on this. [...] But all indications show that it does not necessarily mean that tornadoes will be increasing in frequency.”On the frequency of tornadoes, Dixon is also quoted by the English-language France 24 here:
"It's having to do with better (weather tracking) technology, more population, the fact that the population is better educated and more aware. So we're seeing them more often," Dixon said.But he said it would be ‘a terrible mistake’ to relate the up-tick to climate change.”
France 24 also quotes a FEMA official:
Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), also dismissed Thursday climate change as a factor in the deadly tornadoes: ‘Actually what we’re seeing is springtime,’ he said.
"Many people think of Oklahoma as ‘Tornado Alley and forget that the southeast United States actually has a history of longer and more powerful tornadoes that stay on the ground longer’.”Many weeks back I recall Joe Bastardi predicting a humdinger of a tornado season, and of course we now see that his warnings were spot on. This spike in tornadoes is not due to warmth, but to cooling brought on by La Nina, with cold northern air smashing into warm, moist southern air.
David Imy from the NOAA Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Oklahoma adds:
“We knew it was going to be a big tornado year. But the key to that tip-off was unrelated to climate change: It is related to the natural fluctuations of the planet.”A rare moment of sanity coming from the NOAA? Sorry Romm, but on this one you’re a lone fool (again) out in the desert.
Unrelated: Benny Peiser brings or attention to news that a Global Climate Treaty Is DOA. Looks like Europe will be joining Romm out in the desert.
Note; Two other Ph.D.’s prove that a Ph.D. does not guarantee intelligence or at least that for some dogma trumps common sense in this story.
FOIA Not for Skeptics
Heh. From the Junk Science to the Washington Post via IceCap.
On second thought... no, I really don't.
If you're at all interested in the skeptics' side of the AGW debate (you know, the one the warmists declared "over" years ago) and IceCap isn't on at least your informal weekly list for you to hit and browse ... it should be.
WashPost: Freedom of Information Act not for skeptics’ useI wonder where the Washington Post comes down on the harrassing lawsuits filed against Sarah Palin in Alaska, taking advantage of an unique Alaskan law that allowed it.
Junk Science responds to WAPO editorial
In a bizarre Memorial Day editorial, the Washington Post criticized climate skeptics for using the Freedom of Information Act to pry documents concerning Climategater Michael Mann from the University of Virginia.
The Post labeled the skeptics’ FOIA efforts as “harrassing” and “nuisance tactics.”
The Post, however, has been entirely silent on Greenpeace’s efforts to FOIA documents from the University of Virginia concerning Pat Michaels, University of Delaware concerning David Legates and from Harvard University concerning Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas - efforts that are truly “harrassing” and “nuisance” in nature as Greenpeace acted entirely in retaliation to the FOIA request concerning Mann.
The editorial is especially gross coming on the day when America commemorates those who died to preserve everyone’s freedoms - not just those of the politically correct.
See post and be sure to read the comments.
On second thought... no, I really don't.
If you're at all interested in the skeptics' side of the AGW debate (you know, the one the warmists declared "over" years ago) and IceCap isn't on at least your informal weekly list for you to hit and browse ... it should be.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Al "Motel 6" Gore
I know everybody and his dog already blogged this, but part of the purpose for this blog is my own personal bookmarking service.
So, here goes.
Apparently, according to Gore, "Earth Hour" is for the unwashed masses.
So, here goes.
Apparently, according to Gore, "Earth Hour" is for the unwashed masses.
Monday, February 15, 2010
So It's Settled Then
In the past few years, we actually had people talking about trying Global Warming Skeptics Deniers and jailing them. Pulling their credentials.
Phil Jones, head of the controversy embroiled Hadley Climate Research Unit ... the one involved in cover-ups and pressuring scientific journals not to publish skeptics papers... the one involved in deleting datasets... that Phil Jones.
That Phil Jones is now saying these things.
Phil Jones, head of the controversy embroiled Hadley Climate Research Unit ... the one involved in cover-ups and pressuring scientific journals not to publish skeptics papers... the one involved in deleting datasets... that Phil Jones.
That Phil Jones is now saying these things.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.But at least we know... The Science Is Settled™.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.
‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Monday, January 04, 2010
Global Warming Hits Hard!
Just went out the the MSN weather page to check the week's forecast. Click to enlarge. Be sure to check out the headlines on the lower right after reading our midwestern forecast.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Dr. Sanity
I used to read Dr. Sanity a while back. I had forgotten about her, but I do remember I liked her stuff.
tim, or "small 't' tim" as Buck calls him, pointed me to a really great article on her blog with links (circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, eh?) on what the Hadley CRU documents exposed and what it means, relating it to the Challenger disaster.
And on the blog roll she goes!
tim, or "small 't' tim" as Buck calls him, pointed me to a really great article on her blog with links (circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, eh?) on what the Hadley CRU documents exposed and what it means, relating it to the Challenger disaster.
And on the blog roll she goes!
It's "Logical"
So this morning on Fox & Friends Geraldo weighed in on the CRU Email issue. He said is isn't about the data being wrong ... (it's not? Then why hide, obfuscate, and destroy?) ... it's about it "looking" bad, and it'll deal a body blow to the movement.
He then went on to say (correctly) that this doesn't mean there isn't global warming, it's just a blow to the case, but in saying that he blurted out something very close to ... It's logical that there is global warming because of pollution.
NO!
How can you appear to be so close to getting it and just miss it entirely in the end?
Isn't that what this research has been all about? To figure out what, if any, effect man's contribution to earth's carbon budget has? If it were just logical, then what has all this money been spent for, exactly?
He only says that because it's been repeated ad nauseum for 20 years on every newscast, every movie, every award ceremony, sit-com, newspaper -- because these clowns who can't explain the stabilization in temperatures, whose dire predictions keep getting pushed farther and farther into the future, whose models cannot reproduce past climate variations -- have systematically interfered with anyone checking or even questioning their work -- decree that it is so.
I'll admit, I heard "obvious" instead of "logical" at first, which is what got me fired up. There is a line of logic (we call these things "theories" until they're proven -- that's what the scientific method is about) that says that since CO2 is a strong visible absorber and IR emitter, more of it (up to a point) would contribute a positive temperature feedback. In the absence of any other negative feedback that might be introduced by other factors. Still, while "obvious" and "logical" aren't technically synonymous, they are in the minds of most lay people.
Maybe Geraldo's right about this. It's not about the data. It's about the whole process from beginning to end.
He then went on to say (correctly) that this doesn't mean there isn't global warming, it's just a blow to the case, but in saying that he blurted out something very close to ... It's logical that there is global warming because of pollution.
NO!
How can you appear to be so close to getting it and just miss it entirely in the end?
Isn't that what this research has been all about? To figure out what, if any, effect man's contribution to earth's carbon budget has? If it were just logical, then what has all this money been spent for, exactly?
He only says that because it's been repeated ad nauseum for 20 years on every newscast, every movie, every award ceremony, sit-com, newspaper -- because these clowns who can't explain the stabilization in temperatures, whose dire predictions keep getting pushed farther and farther into the future, whose models cannot reproduce past climate variations -- have systematically interfered with anyone checking or even questioning their work -- decree that it is so.
I'll admit, I heard "obvious" instead of "logical" at first, which is what got me fired up. There is a line of logic (we call these things "theories" until they're proven -- that's what the scientific method is about) that says that since CO2 is a strong visible absorber and IR emitter, more of it (up to a point) would contribute a positive temperature feedback. In the absence of any other negative feedback that might be introduced by other factors. Still, while "obvious" and "logical" aren't technically synonymous, they are in the minds of most lay people.
Maybe Geraldo's right about this. It's not about the data. It's about the whole process from beginning to end.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
More Climategate (sorry, the AGW religion is one of our pet topics around here)
Via ICECap.
Watt's Up With That? digs into the kinds of "adjustments" that are made to, ahem, "hide the decline".
Note: my personal take is that in the last 10 or so years, we really can't say there's been cooling. But nor can we say there has been any warming. It appears that IPCCscientists politicians just tend to like hiding declines when they find them.
Speaking of "Hide the Decline", with my above note in mind -- Minnesotans for Global Warming havestruck, stricken, strickificated .... again:
I believe that's Michael Mann of Hockey Stick Chart fame's mug in the video. And in the spirit of the season ....
Watt's Up With That? digs into the kinds of "adjustments" that are made to, ahem, "hide the decline".
Note: my personal take is that in the last 10 or so years, we really can't say there's been cooling. But nor can we say there has been any warming. It appears that IPCC
Speaking of "Hide the Decline", with my above note in mind -- Minnesotans for Global Warming have
I believe that's Michael Mann of Hockey Stick Chart fame's mug in the video. And in the spirit of the season ....
Gore Dismisses Hadley CRU emails as "Old"
Via Drudge:
Gore dismisses the Hadley CRU emails that he says he hasn't read on the grounds that they're 10 years old.
Well, the oldest ones are 13 years old. The most recent ones aren't even 10 weeks old. Or even 5.
Gore dismisses the Hadley CRU emails that he says he hasn't read on the grounds that they're 10 years old.
Well, the oldest ones are 13 years old. The most recent ones aren't even 10 weeks old. Or even 5.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Great Global Warming Swindle and the Hadley CRU Documents
For those of you who missed it, or for those of you who have seen one "side", that is, "An Inconvenient Truth" ... and haven't seen the other side of the story, I post this from March, 2007. Watch it, and I do mean the whole thing. Then go read about the Hadley CRU emails, and ask yourself who is telling the truth here.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Must Watch PJTV Trifecta
Video: Trifecta on Climategate.
Steve Green is in rare form. And Bill Whittle is his usual insightful self.
And the quote Bill Whittle unearthed from President Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex speech from 50 years ago rings true.
Steve Green is in rare form. And Bill Whittle is his usual insightful self.
And the quote Bill Whittle unearthed from President Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex speech from 50 years ago rings true.
the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. - Dwight D. EisenhowerAnd please consider subscribing to PJTV to keep it going. It is a valuable service, IMHO. $5 a month. Well worth it to me.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Peer Reviewed! Peer Reviewed! Peer Reviewed!
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" - Phil Jones, Director - Hadley CRUFrankly, I doubt Ed Begley Jr. has a clue what "peer review" means. It's just a term AlGore's been throwing about lately, so Ed parrotts it.
If you get to define away scientists who disagree with you as non-peers, then peer review becomes meaningless. Well all the people who agree with us agree with us!!!
Richard Lindzen Speaks
Haven't seen much from MIT's Richard Lindzen lately (probably by design ... what with the IPCC "scientists" and the media shutting out anything outside of the now clearly manufactured "concensus"), but he is the single scientific voice I respect the most on the subject.
Go. Read. Be enlightened.
Go. Read. Be enlightened.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)