CO2 causes everything

You knew it and now someone has 'proved' it. Increasing CO2 causes increases in earthquakes and volcanoes.

Add it to the warmlist.

Or maybe not.

Why do some scientists not consider contrary evidence before they seek to publish such nonsense?

Don't they ever ask for and seek to address the contrary evidence as a matter of correct scientific inquiry?

When science is muddied by political ideology connections are sought and found via confirmation bias. Ideologically motivated scientists are quite aware that misinformation can zip around the world ten times before the light of day has a chance to tie its shoes. The alarm can be sounded, fear generated and funds for further study procured before rationality wakes up.

George Orwell said it best: Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. Climate science is loaded with it.


CO2 causes warm winters and it causes cold winters. It causes whatever weather we get. CO2 is magical and proves that contradictions do exist in reality.  

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. George Orwell

Mars and Venus

Both planets have a CO2 concentration of 95% in their respective atmospheres. Both lack water vapor and methane. And yet Venus is hot and Mars is not.
Perhaps it is something other than atmospheric composition that determines the surface temperature of a planet.

Do ya think?

CO2ty Index

How come we do not have an index that measures the daily CO2 content in the atmosphere? We could call it the CO2ty index. We do this for water vapor and call it relative humidity.

We have been talking about the dangers of human induced CO2 in the atmosphere for decades but still no one has devised a CO2ty index to tell us what to wear when we venture outside. Why is this??

Why have meteorologists not added the CO2ty index to their nightly forecasts? We know about the UV inex and the humidity but not CO2. How come?

What would it tell us about the next days weather?

Real World Evidence on Heat Transfer

The satellite record available since the late 1970s reports that there is no decrease in the amount of energy being transferred to space from the top of the earth's atmosphere. This is contrary to global warming theory which states that less energy should make it into space as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere because it is a heat trapping gas.

Oops!

Have fun with this one

Who said it? Al Gore in The Earth in Balance or the Unabomber in his manifesto?

Take the quiz.

How did you do?

h/t to: 4 Responses to Current TV debunks climate alarmism

a.n. ditchfield | February 25, 2012 at 11:53 am | Reply

There is an amusing quiz at: http://www.crm114.com/algore/quiz.html
Identify the author of quotes extracted from two publications:
• Al Gore – the politician who wrote Earth in Balance;
• Theodore Kaczynski – the terrorist who wrote the Unabomber Manifesto
Both share hostility against the Industrial Revolution and see the human population as a pest on the planet. Their ideas are so similar that it is hard to attribute them to one or another author. The quiz has twelve quotes and rare is the person who scores 50%.
The first one amassed a fortune of several hundred million dollars over a decade and got a Nobel Prize and an Oscar. The second one got a life sentence.

Found in the comments to  'Current TV debunks climate alarmism' at Junkscience.com

Nice piece on Skepticism at WUWT

Link is here.

Gobbledeglieck!

The debate is over. Then again, maybe not.

See it here.  More hypocrisy here.

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell  

Climategate.

Fakegate.

Googlegate. 

More data tampering in the Arctic 

Data tampering around the world. 

Will we recognize the truth?

Certainly with all the manipulation going around we will have to dig to find the truth which is being buried by a desire to validate the CAGW theory because it will provide the perfect way to take over the world's resources so human living can be made sustainable.

Some people bent on taking over the world are not immune to bolstering their theory with false data. To hell with science! Visions of George Orwell's 1984 are dancing in my head.

More Settled Science

Now shut up, skeptics.

CO2 causes all kinds of weather.

It is so simple I don't see why you morons don't get it. When CO2 builds up in an area (high CO2ty index) you get global warming in that area. When the CO2ty index is low (CO2 leaves the area) you get cold weather.

Next time you go out consult your CO2ty index and you will know how to dress for the weather.

/sarc

Summarised: The Skeptic's Case

Here it is. Graphically well laid out for all to see.The effects of additional CO2 in the atmosphere have been exaggerated by the IPCC. There is no tipping point and global warming is not accelerating. The GCMs relied upon by the IPCC attribute far to much importance to CO2 as the main driver of climate change.

It is speculated that this has been done with prejudice for political purposes. See here.

The global warming fiasco has turned into a real world Pinky and the Brain cartoon. See here and here as well.

Can we get back to science now?

QED.

Open Letter to Peter Gleick

Dear Peter: I hope you have received words of support and encouragement from those who know you well. The stress of these days must be enormous. I am sure that your recent ‘lapse of judgement’ as you have called it is but an anomaly in an otherwise distinguished career. We are all human and have suffered the consequences when our passions get the best of us. Your recent actions with respect to the Heartland Institute (HI) as I am sure you now realize were guided by your emotions and not the careful reason that you so diligently employed to obtain your many degrees. Our political views, when passionately held, can sometimes lead us down an incorrect path. We want to be right and are so convinced of the veracity of our position that we stop listening to contrary evidence. One way we can justify our rejection of new data or research  is to persuade ourselves that it is automatically invalidated by the identity of those who funded the research. Your actions against HI seem to suggest that you have fallen victim to this false reasoning. Even if you uncover the most heinous donor possible behind HI that would have nothing to do with the validity of their research.


Ask not who made the claim but ask if it is the truth, said Aquinas.


In the matter of HI we might want to add:


Ask not who funded the claim but ask if it is the truth.


If there was only one question on a logic exam and it asked whether arguing from the funder to the validity of a claim was a valid argument and you answered in the affirmative you would flunk the test would you not?


The funder does not determine the truth. It is the conformity of the conclusions with reality that strengthens or weakens the case being made. Reality is the final arbiter in science. If a theory explains what we find in reality then the theory is enhanced; if it does not then the premises upon which the theory is based must be re-examined, modified or abandoned. In scientific debate it is the truth that is important not the identity of the financier of the research. 


I do not like the EPA but just because it funds your research does not invalidate that research any more than it validates it. Reality will determine the truth value of your work. 


Your attempt to uncover the donors to the HI and make them public would not strengthen the case for CAGW. It would have nothing to do with it. So what if A,B,C, and D are donors to HI? What does that have to do with the validity of CAGW? CAGW is a contentious theory and IMHO there is more evidence against it then there is for it. Skeptical sites are holding up the mirror in the hopes that warmist alarmists will one day open their eyes and allow the cognitive dissonance of contrary data to mix with the selective nature of their confirmation bias for the interplay of both are necessary in the mind if the truth is to be found. 


In science, the consensus or the conventional wisdom is not always correct. We need look no further than the story behind the 2011 Nobel prize in Chemistry for an example of that. In that case Daniel was the 'denier' to the consensus makers. In reality, the consensus was in denial about the truth that Daniel had uncovered in 1982. Life is strange.



It is to be hoped that the truth will win out in the matter of CAGW and that the chicanery that has been engaged in by yourself as well as the principals implicated in the Climategate I and II emails will cease. FOIA has given the Climategate scientists ample opportunity to fess up to their sins and if they do not perhaps the next set of emails released may finally spur the authorities to investigate possible criminal actions implied by their own admissions. 

Is this not a reasonable approach to the issues? Ignoring the comments section, is it not true that your actions have done more for the anti-CAGW crowd than for your side? You come across as an econut while you make the HI approach appear reasonable.


Miranda Devine, Daily Telegraph, February 22:
Heartland makes an impact, not because of money, but because of the power of its ideas, the logic of its arguments and the intellects of the experts it attracts.

May I leave you with one point to ponder in the days ahead?

A scientist seeks the truth, wherever that may lead. A believer already knows the truth, and cannot be swayed no matter how compelling the evidence. –
Author Unknown


Enjoy your LOA.

Here we go again - Himalaya

IPCC continues to be shown by empirical research to be a fabrication machine full of unsupported predictions based on faulty climate models that do not reflect the reality we observe. The IPCC is a propaganda machine for their Agenda.

The Himalayas, contrary to the MSM and IPCC opinions, have not lost any ice in the last 10 years.

Oops!

Reality trumps trumped up climate models. CO2 exonerated again.

Anti human agenda in action

Cape Hatteras

Watch the video. Will your living area be next?

Junkscience

AR5

The first order draft (FOD) of the IPCC 5th Assessment Report is being circulated among climate scientists for comment. Here are the comments of one expert reviewer, Alec Rawls.

It is the SUN , stupid.

The SUN is implicated in the rise of global warming throughout the period examined 1750-2010 to a high degree of probability "The empirical evidence in favor of the solar explanation is overwhelming."

But the IPCC assumes the temperature rise is due to human induced CO2 contributions to the atmosphere. 

This is called stacking the deck. It is not an honest approach to the science but is pre-designed to generate a desired outcome for political and economic reasons.

The pre-determined outcome for AR5 is not a summary of climate science but a promotion of political science.

Shameful!

Meanwhile back in reality...

Climate models have again been shown to be incorrect in their assumptions and predictions of how the climate should behave in a world of increased human induced CO2 additions to the atmosphere.

"The runaway global warming scenarios of the IPCC climate models are based exclusively on a hypothesized positive climate feedback - satellite data reveal a powerful negative cloud feedback instead"       

Climategate, Altergate and now Fakegate

First it was Climategate and now it is Fakegate. Will  global warmist alarmists stop at nothing to try and convince you that CO2, a trace, harmless gas essential to life on earth is the root of all environmental evil.

There are another 220,000 emails in the Climategate saga that have not yet been released. That story is incomplete. It would appear that the whistleblower in that instance is giving the culprits implicated in the 6000 or so emails that have been released time to fess up to their wrongdoing before the rest are made public and thus driving the authorities to finally take some action since the wrongdoers will not own up to their bastardized science and anti scientific actions.

It will be interesting to see if the writer of the fake Heartland Institute document will come forward or be found out. When illegal actions are performed to further an agenda the basis of that agenda is called into question as are the motives of those who support it.

Stacking the deck by altering past data to conform to the desired story is another trick used by the pious.



Science is being corrupted just as Eisenhower warned that it might:

"Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

Sadly, with the unfinished stories of Climategate and now Fakegate climate science has become such a captive. Comedians instantly have a new source of material. The mockery of 'climate science' can only be a late night away. I'll get the popcorn.

Fakegate update. Gleick likely author of fake memo which he claimed to have received in the mail.

The Y2K bug

It's baacck in the form of global warming/climate change/global climate disruption/unsustainable growth.

"He gave us a slide with a series of familiar alarms – melting ice caps, disappearing icebergs, receding glaciers, rising sea levels. It was published by the US Weather Bureau in 1922."

History repeats. And the scares go on. And we still wait for the impending disaster that never comes.

Why? Because change is what the climate does and it is cyclical. 


Another non-problem upon which billions of dollars of taxpayer money has been wasted.


So much good could have been accomplished with a more judicious and realistic assault upon real problems.

Gleickgate

" in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name." Well, Peter Gleick, that is an admission of fraud and theft. The documents reveal no wrongdoing by the Heartland Institute and merely confirm what we already know about them. They are a registered charitable educational institution supported by like minded people just like all other such organizations. This is not whistleblowing but an invasion of privacy. The subsequent spreading of these documents around the internet is bullying and detrimental to the reputations, not only of the Heartland Institute but to those in the climate alarmist camp. It shows they will stoop to criminal acts in a misguided effort to discredit their adversaries. It shows that they do not believe in the strength of their scientific case otherwise such egregious actions would not be 'necessary'. Science is settled through peer reviewed research as presented and argued in scientific journals. The research consists of observations and experiments with reported results and interpretations clearly available to all for further input, modification and eventual agreement. A consensus is formed not by counting heads in favor of a theory but by the agreement of the theory with observations of reality. Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance resonate in the scientific journals and it is the interplay between the two that eventually ferrets out the truth about the way reality works.
Peter Gleick's "judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate," is no excuse for criminal acts and as Andrew Revkin has said:  "Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. (Some of the released documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate fight.) That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family)."

Peter Gleick, who speaks on ethics, has shot himself in the foot and undermined his own integrity. Why listen to a hypocrite who changes his mind at his convenience?

The personal tragedy that is Peter Gleick is a sad commentary on the climate wars debate. Reality is the ultimate judge and so far reality trumps the theory that human induced CO2 is the cause of the modern warming.

Here is how 'climate scientists' manipulate data to prove their point. Talk about honesty and integrity in climate science. It is easy to see who doesn't have it.

Ideas have consequences

And sometimes those consequences are not pleasant. As reported in this blog on May 6, 2011 Australia prepared for drought and got floods. That news is back again. Bad science; bad policy; bad results.

Die kalte Sonne

A CAGW skeptic book of the same title was released today (Feb 6, 2012) in Germany written by a prominent socialist and environmentalist. CO2 induced global warming is being called into question by the MSM in Germany.

It might be an easy sell as temperatures in Germany are at their lowest in 26 years. People must be asking what happened to global warming and imploring the powers that be to bring it back.

The trend continues. And so do the scandals.

Bad news for renewables in Germany.

Where has the heat trapping gas gone?

Europe and Asia are in the deep freeze and we can't find the heat trapping gas CO2. Did it go south for the winter? One could hardly blame it.

There is lots of cold and snow in Hungary, Croatia, Spain, France, Italy, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Poland, Kabul, Serbia, Romania, and Pakistan, Algeria, Korea, Serbia, India, Kuwait, China, Slovakia, Israel, Turkey, Denmark, Rome,  Britain, even New Zealand and Australia in the summer and the Sahara desert.

Wow, world weather gone wild. But, according to the models, aren't we supposed to get warmer in the winter?

North America has not escaped the wrath of the 2011-2012 winter season. Seattle, Iowa, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, California,  Montana, Alaska, Canada,  Michigan, Wisconsin, and NewYork. Even the southwest has gotten its fair share of the white stuff. Arizona and New Mexico have had snow during the 2011-2012 winter.

One website wants to know: Where's my global warming dude?

Meanwhile central Canada and the southeastern US are enjoying a mild winter. Maybe all the CO2 went there. Give me a break!

The catastrophic man-made global warming hysteria pauses in the mind when it is realized that some parts of the world are always warmer than 'normal' while others suffer from below 'normal' temperatures. Just what is 'normal'? We can conclude from the variability of the weather from year to year than change is what the climate does. That is normal. The variability also suggests that CO2 has nuttin to do with it. We must look elsewhere for explanations of climate change.

I got an idea. Let's take a poll in Europe and Asia and see where global warming falls as a concern in people's minds at this moment.

Drive your SUV, turn up the heat, enjoy your A/C in the summer, use incandescent bulbs without guilt and enjoy the interglacial.

Why people go south for the winter

Right click on the snowman and open.





This is why we voluntarily subject ourselves to the global warming of a southern vacation.The Aussies and Kiwis go to Vanuatu.

Here is another reason.

Origin of the consensus

“How can you deny that man made global warming is real when 97 percent of climate scientists agree that it is true?”

It is not what it seems. 

The other 'evidence' for a consensus originated with Naomi Oreskes. It was based on 900 abstracts of published papers that dealt with global warming. Here are 900 peer reviewed papers that support skeptical arguments against human induced global warming. 


Has anyone replicated her study??

A modern successful exercise in battling a consensus that turned out to be incorrect. 


Citing a consensus as a valid argument isn't one. It is argument from authority. If a logic exam contained only the question about the validity of the argument from authority and you answered that it was a valid argument then flunk would be your grade.

CO2 exonerated again

From the HadCRUT dataset.




 


Oops! It is not CO2.