James is at it again. Sounds like he has been listening to the advisers of Harold Camping.
"The global warming
signal is now louder than the noise of random weather, as I predicted
would happen by now in the journal Science in 1981. Extremely hot
summers have increased noticeably. We can say with high confidence that
the recent heat waves in Texas and Russia, and the one in Europe in 2003, which killed tens of thousands, were not natural events — they
were caused by human-induced climate change."
Check out the last three links that were added to the quote by this writer.
Hysteria it is. Hansen is doing a monumental impersonation of Harold Camping. "If this sounds apocalyptic, it is". Hansen means to sound apocalyptic. This is enough to convince me that we are OK and the world is not in crisis. People who make apocalyptic predictions have never been correct. My skeptical radar turns on automatically whenever such prognostications are uttered. Hansen sounds more reasonable than Camping because Hansen has a science background. He also started the global warming 'crisis' in 1988. Unlike James Lovelock or Klaus-Eckart Puls Hansen is unable or unwilling to review the evidence and have his eyes opened unto the truth. But then he has a lot to lose and it would take a man of great character to admit that he was wrong. Apparently, Hansen has invested too much of his reputation in the AGW theory to back out now. His psyche could not stand the knowledge that he has been backing the wrong horse all these years.
Interestingly, a year 2000 study has surfaced, published by the American National Academy of Science, authored by none other than James Hansen, that shows NASA knew global warming is caused by non-CO2 factors. Well, gollllleee!
Happily the winds of change are blowing.
Begin
challenging your own assumptions. Your assumptions are your windows on
the world. Scrub them off every once in awhile, or the light won't
come in. ~Alan Alda
About Me
- JLS
- Copyright Notice © JLS and LensFocus, 2008-present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to JLS and LensFocus with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Club of Rome New Apocalyse
RIO+20 is getting closer. Let's ramp up the FEAR and GUILT. Before we pay much attention to these guys let's listen to their strategy published many years ago.
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose." ~Club of Rome
Global warming is the FEAR.
Humans are GUILTY.
Global governance is the solution. REAL FEAR.
Pinky: what are we going to do tonight, Brain?
Brain: same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to take over the world.
The CoR want to bring that cartoon show to life. Beware RIO+20: your freedom and prosperity are at risk.
Note: The Club of Rome, a think tank that was founded in the Italian capital but is currently headquartered in the Swiss city of Winterthur, includes current and former world leaders, UN bureaucrats, high-level politicians, diplomats, scientists and business leaders from around the world.
These are not poor people. Be assured that their agenda will secure their own health and wealth first and foremost and the expectation will be that you will bear the brunt of the changes required to save the world for them.
Change your light bulbs.
Turn your lights off.
Turn down your thermostat.
Stop using plastic bags.
Stop eating meat.
Drive an EV.
Pay more for gas if you don't.
Have fewer kids.
Stop using the internet for mindless surfing.
Pay more for solar and wind power.
Freeze in winter and sweat in summer.
Thank you very much and have a nice life.
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose." ~Club of Rome
Global warming is the FEAR.
Humans are GUILTY.
Global governance is the solution. REAL FEAR.
Pinky: what are we going to do tonight, Brain?
Brain: same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to take over the world.
The CoR want to bring that cartoon show to life. Beware RIO+20: your freedom and prosperity are at risk.
Note: The Club of Rome, a think tank that was founded in the Italian capital but is currently headquartered in the Swiss city of Winterthur, includes current and former world leaders, UN bureaucrats, high-level politicians, diplomats, scientists and business leaders from around the world.
These are not poor people. Be assured that their agenda will secure their own health and wealth first and foremost and the expectation will be that you will bear the brunt of the changes required to save the world for them.
Change your light bulbs.
Turn your lights off.
Turn down your thermostat.
Stop using plastic bags.
Stop eating meat.
Drive an EV.
Pay more for gas if you don't.
Have fewer kids.
Stop using the internet for mindless surfing.
Pay more for solar and wind power.
Freeze in winter and sweat in summer.
Thank you very much and have a nice life.
Here's to CO2 exhaled by me and you
CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere that is essential to life on earth.
It is plant food which we augment via our respiration.
It is currently the scourge of the climate change alarmists because it is a byproduct of fossil fuel burning and is believed to cause global warming via its heat trapping ability. Alarmists see global warming as a disaster in the making and recommend replacement of fossil fuels with alternative energy generation that are carbon neutral as a way to stave off the cooking of humans. Some people are prone to the dramatic or maybe they just don't like the capitalist system.
But life is full of the ying and yang, the plus and minus, the good and the bad. It turns out that CO2 is not at all bad. It does have redeeming qualities and may not be the demon that warmists would like us to believe.
CO2 is plant food and with increasing amounts of it in our atmosphere we should expect the benefits of increased biomass (food and forests) to be a result. And that is indeed the case.
Ground level ozone is harmful to food crops. It turns out that CO2 ameliorates the damage.
By increasing biomass higher levels of CO2 also increase the amount of disease fighting chemicals in plants.
Studies are beginning to show up that indicate that the earth's atmospheric sensitivity to increased levels of CO2 has been vastly overestimated.
CO2 is not the modern day witch that alarmists would have us believe. To the contrary increased levels of CO2 are beneficial to our existence and it should be noted that throughout much of our planet's early history CO2 levels have been much higher than they are now. And no runaway global warming occurred. Similarly with levels of CO2 below those of contemporary society temperatures have been warmer than today. This represents a disconnect between the theory of CO2 driven climate change and reality. Reality is always the final arbiter in scientific disputes.
It is time to end the campaign to impune CO2 and fossil fuels as the cause of the modern global warming and to search for the real causes of climate change and temperature fluctuations. Political ideology has once again led some people to reach conclusions that run contrary to reality and to pursue their own agenda in complete disregard for the facts. Emotional dedication to ideology often lead us into dark alleys.
Warmists liked to convey the picture that scientists skeptical of man-made global warming had their heads in the sand, were deniers, were flat earthers, were in the employ of the fossil fuel industry and couldn't see the forest for the trees when all the time it was they who needed to close their eyes to bolster their delusions about the climate and immunize themselves to the contrary evidence that reality presented. They created a cabal and denigrated those who did not buy into their delusions.
The modern debate on climate change is another example of the pot calling the kettle black.
CO2 was exhaled during the creation of this post. No living thing was harmed. Some even liked it.
It is plant food which we augment via our respiration.
It is currently the scourge of the climate change alarmists because it is a byproduct of fossil fuel burning and is believed to cause global warming via its heat trapping ability. Alarmists see global warming as a disaster in the making and recommend replacement of fossil fuels with alternative energy generation that are carbon neutral as a way to stave off the cooking of humans. Some people are prone to the dramatic or maybe they just don't like the capitalist system.
But life is full of the ying and yang, the plus and minus, the good and the bad. It turns out that CO2 is not at all bad. It does have redeeming qualities and may not be the demon that warmists would like us to believe.
CO2 is plant food and with increasing amounts of it in our atmosphere we should expect the benefits of increased biomass (food and forests) to be a result. And that is indeed the case.
Ground level ozone is harmful to food crops. It turns out that CO2 ameliorates the damage.
By increasing biomass higher levels of CO2 also increase the amount of disease fighting chemicals in plants.
Studies are beginning to show up that indicate that the earth's atmospheric sensitivity to increased levels of CO2 has been vastly overestimated.
CO2 is not the modern day witch that alarmists would have us believe. To the contrary increased levels of CO2 are beneficial to our existence and it should be noted that throughout much of our planet's early history CO2 levels have been much higher than they are now. And no runaway global warming occurred. Similarly with levels of CO2 below those of contemporary society temperatures have been warmer than today. This represents a disconnect between the theory of CO2 driven climate change and reality. Reality is always the final arbiter in scientific disputes.
It is time to end the campaign to impune CO2 and fossil fuels as the cause of the modern global warming and to search for the real causes of climate change and temperature fluctuations. Political ideology has once again led some people to reach conclusions that run contrary to reality and to pursue their own agenda in complete disregard for the facts. Emotional dedication to ideology often lead us into dark alleys.
Warmists liked to convey the picture that scientists skeptical of man-made global warming had their heads in the sand, were deniers, were flat earthers, were in the employ of the fossil fuel industry and couldn't see the forest for the trees when all the time it was they who needed to close their eyes to bolster their delusions about the climate and immunize themselves to the contrary evidence that reality presented. They created a cabal and denigrated those who did not buy into their delusions.
The modern debate on climate change is another example of the pot calling the kettle black.
CO2 was exhaled during the creation of this post. No living thing was harmed. Some even liked it.
Consensus Yet Again in May 2012
In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.
Galileo Galilei
The New York Times is promoting a billboard sponsored by Al Gore's Climate Reality Project. The billboard asks: “Who to believe on climate? Heartland ... or EVERY National Scientific Academy in the world?”
What questions were put to all the members of all the National Scientific Academies?
What independent third party non-partisan pollster administered the questions?
When were these polls completed? In what countries?
What were the results? Where can they be found online?
What was the percentage of respondents in each country?
Did they ask who believed that the human burning of fossil fuels was the primary cause of the late 20th century global warming?
The answers to the above questions are unavailable because no such polls were ever done.
The governors of the National Academies issued the concurrence with the man-made global warming view as a political statement.
Why?
Read here
And how are people feeling about the issue of global warming after all the scare stories and hype? Check out Obama.
And now you know the unreported part of the story.
In another consensus study conducted by Naomi Oreskes she counted 10,000 papers supporting AGW. How many did she find that did not and why did she not report that number? This oversight betrays a bias rather than an attempt to elucidate the truth. A German meteorologist, Klaus-Eckart Puls, recently remarked: "Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it."
How many more scientists who have supported AGW are in the same boat? How many of the often presented figure of 97% are like him? In the debate over the proximate causes of modern climate change there is no doubt that someone is in denial. In this case is it the side that is leveling the accusation that is indulging in the practice? Can we say projection? They claim reason but exhibit Aristotelian fallacies in defense of their position such as ad hominems and painting with a broad brush. And yet they think it is those skeptical of the 'consensus' who are in denial. They believe in the consensus as if that is sufficient. They think they have the weight of the evidence on their side because of it. But consensus is not evidence. Observation, experiments and studies constitute evidence. And there is evidence on both sides.
Interestingly, a year 2000 peer reviewed study has surfaced, published by the American National Academy of Science, authored by none other than James Hansen, that shows NASA knew global warming is caused by non-CO2 factors. Well, gollllleee!
There is no consensus on man-made global warming. But one thing is sure: both sides can't both be right.
Let us not forget that reality is the final arbiter.
The location of this version of an acronym for CAGW eludes me: Conning A Gullible World
And so it is.
Galileo Galilei
The New York Times is promoting a billboard sponsored by Al Gore's Climate Reality Project. The billboard asks: “Who to believe on climate? Heartland ... or EVERY National Scientific Academy in the world?”
What questions were put to all the members of all the National Scientific Academies?
What independent third party non-partisan pollster administered the questions?
When were these polls completed? In what countries?
What were the results? Where can they be found online?
What was the percentage of respondents in each country?
Did they ask who believed that the human burning of fossil fuels was the primary cause of the late 20th century global warming?
The answers to the above questions are unavailable because no such polls were ever done.
The governors of the National Academies issued the concurrence with the man-made global warming view as a political statement.
Why?
Read here
And how are people feeling about the issue of global warming after all the scare stories and hype? Check out Obama.
And now you know the unreported part of the story.
In another consensus study conducted by Naomi Oreskes she counted 10,000 papers supporting AGW. How many did she find that did not and why did she not report that number? This oversight betrays a bias rather than an attempt to elucidate the truth. A German meteorologist, Klaus-Eckart Puls, recently remarked: "Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it."
How many more scientists who have supported AGW are in the same boat? How many of the often presented figure of 97% are like him? In the debate over the proximate causes of modern climate change there is no doubt that someone is in denial. In this case is it the side that is leveling the accusation that is indulging in the practice? Can we say projection? They claim reason but exhibit Aristotelian fallacies in defense of their position such as ad hominems and painting with a broad brush. And yet they think it is those skeptical of the 'consensus' who are in denial. They believe in the consensus as if that is sufficient. They think they have the weight of the evidence on their side because of it. But consensus is not evidence. Observation, experiments and studies constitute evidence. And there is evidence on both sides.
Interestingly, a year 2000 peer reviewed study has surfaced, published by the American National Academy of Science, authored by none other than James Hansen, that shows NASA knew global warming is caused by non-CO2 factors. Well, gollllleee!
There is no consensus on man-made global warming. But one thing is sure: both sides can't both be right.
Let us not forget that reality is the final arbiter.
The location of this version of an acronym for CAGW eludes me: Conning A Gullible World
And so it is.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Climate Change Collapse of Ancient Civilization
No mention of CO2 but great emphasis on the the fact that 'All climate on Earth is driven by the sun'.
'The mysterious fall of the largest of the world's earliest urban civilizations nearly 4,000 years ago in what is now India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh now appears to have a key culprit — ancient climate change, researchers say.'
Some of the links in the article are worth following.
Support for some of the contentions in the above linked paper are here.
And what caused climate change 4000 years ago? Not your SUV but your SUN.
Change is what the climate does. Always has. Always will.
'The mysterious fall of the largest of the world's earliest urban civilizations nearly 4,000 years ago in what is now India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh now appears to have a key culprit — ancient climate change, researchers say.'
Some of the links in the article are worth following.
Support for some of the contentions in the above linked paper are here.
And what caused climate change 4000 years ago? Not your SUV but your SUN.
Change is what the climate does. Always has. Always will.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Kilimanjaro - a history of the snow cap
In AIT, former vice president Al Gore stated, “Within a decade, there
will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro” due to warming temperatures.
The 2012 snows of Kilimanjaro.
The 2011 snows of Kilimanjaro defy global warming force climbers to turn back.
Kilimanjaro in 1890. Losing its ice cap then.
Photos from ice-free Kilimanjaro.
More can be found here and here
The snows of Kilimanjaro continued to shrink during the global cooling scare of the 1970s.
Deforestation as cause of decreasing snows on Kilimanjaro
Fluctuations in snow cover on Kilimanjaro are nothing new.
The reason for the disappearing summit glaciers of Kilimanjaro has more to do with moisture transport up the mountain than with any global warming.
Tanzania declares snows on Kilimanjaro to be increasing in 2008.
From Greenie Watch: The collage below from SDA is informative
The 2012 snows of Kilimanjaro.
The 2011 snows of Kilimanjaro defy global warming force climbers to turn back.
Kilimanjaro in 1890. Losing its ice cap then.
Photos from ice-free Kilimanjaro.
More can be found here and here
The snows of Kilimanjaro continued to shrink during the global cooling scare of the 1970s.
Deforestation as cause of decreasing snows on Kilimanjaro
Fluctuations in snow cover on Kilimanjaro are nothing new.
The reason for the disappearing summit glaciers of Kilimanjaro has more to do with moisture transport up the mountain than with any global warming.
Tanzania declares snows on Kilimanjaro to be increasing in 2008.
From Greenie Watch: The collage below from SDA is informative
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Water vapor feedback
New paper finds water vapor feedback is strongly negative.
According to the theory of CO2 driven global warming/climate changeCO2 causes warming which causes more water to evaporate into the atmosphere which causes more warming which causes more water to evaporate from the oceans and so on until we cook ourselves.
Apparently not.
Water vapor forms clouds which reflects incoming solar energy. This is a negative feedback.
Clouds cool. No runaway global warming. Crisis over.
This should be good news.
CO2 was exhaled during the composition of this post. No living thing was harmed. Some even enjoyed it.
The Arctic is melting again and again and again
When will the world surfing championships finally be held in the Arctic?
1923
1947
1952
How about 2000 - nope, try again
Oops - 2008 ice cap gone
Now
Maybe next year - 2013
2014 2015 2016 ??
One thing the experts seem to be expert at: bad predictions
Still waiting....for the surf to be up in the Arctic
1923
1947
1952
How about 2000 - nope, try again
Oops - 2008 ice cap gone
Now
Maybe next year - 2013
2014 2015 2016 ??
One thing the experts seem to be expert at: bad predictions
Still waiting....for the surf to be up in the Arctic
New crime against humanity
Uh huh. And guess who is guilty? Why, it's the climate realists who look at the evidence that Nature presents and find that it does not match that expected if CO2 was truly the switch controlling the climate. But Dr Brown starts from the premise that CAGW is true and then indicts those who disagree with a crime against humanity. Apparently, it is not a crime against humanity to waste resources on solutions to a non-problem. It is also not worth commenting on all the BS (Bad Science) that has led to the adoption of these wasteful and expensive policies of which Dr Brown must be aware unless he has been living in his imagination only. And when panels are formed to discuss the ethics of climate change the deck is stacked with warmists which is, of course, the perfect way to reach an unbiased conclusion. Unhampered maybe.
Climategate is not mentioned as an ethical excursion into debauchery.
We won't mention other instances of misbehavior by alarmist scientists because warmists are above reproach because they preach science that supports valued ideological proclivities.
They don't manipulate temperature data. This would be exposed.
Data adjustments are necessary and valid.
No lying involved.
Adjusted data only in the USA. Not
No mention of coverups
Where is the condemnation of NOAA?
Falsify data. No mention.
Dr Brown has a problem with ethics in the climate change debate but it is never with the people who are dishonest about the data or their transparency or their coverups. Instead, it is those who disagree with the fakers and liars that are eulogized and protected with neglect.
As an ethicist Dr Brown operates on confirmation bias and ignores instances of cognitive dissonance. This is ethically questionable to say the least. But we know about this kind of behavior:
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts -- Bertrand Russell
Dr Brown: we must all learn to question our own certainty. It is the interplay between confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance that leads to the distillation of the truth. We should never be afraid of the truth. But we should never try to manufacture it either.
Dedication to a political ideology can lead us into dark alleys and cause harm to our fellow human beings. And that is not ethical.
Climategate is not mentioned as an ethical excursion into debauchery.
We won't mention other instances of misbehavior by alarmist scientists because warmists are above reproach because they preach science that supports valued ideological proclivities.
They don't manipulate temperature data. This would be exposed.
Data adjustments are necessary and valid.
No lying involved.
Adjusted data only in the USA. Not
No mention of coverups
Where is the condemnation of NOAA?
Falsify data. No mention.
Dr Brown has a problem with ethics in the climate change debate but it is never with the people who are dishonest about the data or their transparency or their coverups. Instead, it is those who disagree with the fakers and liars that are eulogized and protected with neglect.
As an ethicist Dr Brown operates on confirmation bias and ignores instances of cognitive dissonance. This is ethically questionable to say the least. But we know about this kind of behavior:
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts -- Bertrand Russell
Dr Brown: we must all learn to question our own certainty. It is the interplay between confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance that leads to the distillation of the truth. We should never be afraid of the truth. But we should never try to manufacture it either.
Dedication to a political ideology can lead us into dark alleys and cause harm to our fellow human beings. And that is not ethical.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
A Matter of Scale: more climatic apocalypse
A Matter of Scale is a book recommended by James Hansen.
Here is a quote from it:
"The world is heating, and change is happening faster than expected. The signs are there for everyone to see: a polar ice cap that opens up enough to allow ice-free navigation for the first time since humans colonised North America"
We are only on page 1 of chapter 1 and already the poor research is evident. No need to read further. My interest has waned. Are you aware of the error??
Here it is: a polar ice cap that opens up enough to allow ice-free navigation for the first time since humans colonised North America
The NorthWest Passage has been open for navigation many times in the past. Many of these references have been picked from Steve Goddard's old site at real-science.com.
One
Two
Three 1925
Four 1906
Five 1911
Six - history of variations in Arctic ice
Seven - 1853
Eight - 1905
Nine - 1969
Ten - 1854
Here is a quote from it:
"The world is heating, and change is happening faster than expected. The signs are there for everyone to see: a polar ice cap that opens up enough to allow ice-free navigation for the first time since humans colonised North America"
We are only on page 1 of chapter 1 and already the poor research is evident. No need to read further. My interest has waned. Are you aware of the error??
Here it is: a polar ice cap that opens up enough to allow ice-free navigation for the first time since humans colonised North America
The NorthWest Passage has been open for navigation many times in the past. Many of these references have been picked from Steve Goddard's old site at real-science.com.
One
Two
Three 1925
Four 1906
Five 1911
Six - history of variations in Arctic ice
Seven - 1853
Eight - 1905
Nine - 1969
Ten - 1854
Hyping the Holocaust
"we need to pay attention to the prevention of future genocides through analysis of situations that might lead to one." So says Professor of Physics Dr. Micha Tomkiewicz in his blog piece “Why Am I ‘Dragging’ the Holocaust into the Climate Change Debate?”
(Although I am picking on the comments of Professor Tomkiewicz the issues discussed here are aimed more generally at the body of alarmists who support the population mitigation goals of the UN's Agenda 21.)
The real reason you are using the denier analogy is because there is no science supporting the CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) thesis and therefore you resort to ad hominem attacks as a last resort. You need a deflection away from the truth in order to put your opponents on the defensive because their criticisms cannot be answered. Changing the subject is a dialogue ruse employed to put the speaker on the offensive instead of addressing the embarrassing points raised by critics.
Well, then, sir, let us examine these statements made by people who support the CAGW theory. It would appear that there is a potential for another genocide brewing among the Agenda 21 folks. They do not seem to like their fellow human beings and call us maggots. Should this be a cause for concern? Perhaps it is you who is the denier.
In my experience people who are skeptical of CAGW have a love of truth and do not want to see science corrupted (too late?) to support political ideologies. But there are those who think differently:
"Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time." ~Club of Rome
But if not democracy then what? Totalitarianism? Rule by the few? Rule by decree? Once granted such power is not easily or willingly relinquished to the democratic process. This sets up a mechanism for genocide especially in the light of comments such as these:
"The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man." ~Club of Rome
"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." ~John Davis, editor of Earth First! journal
"A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer." ~Paul Ehrlich, Stanford
"There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated...It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." ~John Holdren, Obama science czar
"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing." ~Christopher Manes, writer in Earth First!
Will Chris make the first human contribution? Maybe we should just let climate change wipe us all out. Problem solved. Let's burn that coal.
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” ~Ted Turner.
Will Ted lead by example or does he fancy himself as one of the ruling elite passed over by those in charge of population reduction? We won't accomplish that kind of reduction by attrition. Others are not quite so harsh and believe that the earth can support a larger population and will allow others to survive.
"...the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million people but less than one billion." ~Club of Rome. Phew, maybe my progeny and grandchildren will be among the lucky ones.
"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." ~David Brower, Sierra Club. Only after you are finished having your kids, eh, David?
"For the planet’s sake, I hope we have bird flu or some other thing that will reduce the population, because otherwise we’re doomed." ~Susan Blakemore science journalist.
At least she doesn't want to be reincarnated as a virus and do the job herself like charming Prince Philip:
'If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels'.
Here is slug John Davis of Earth First again, lamenting the eradication of small pox. That's it, John. Great idea. Medical care only for the leaders of the population reduction movement all in the name of saving the planet from CO2.
"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems." ~John Davis.
What do you think of that Professor Tomkiewicz? Do you fear for your grandchildren yet? Isn't this guy more frightening than a harmless trace gas like CO2?
"In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day." ~Jacques Cousteau. How Jacques? Tell us how? Oh, not his problem anymore. Gone in 1997.
“The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth - social and environmental.” ~Ingrid Newkirk, former PETA president.
Wow, Ingrid! Are you ready to lead by example? Such lucidity, such clarity. Hard to argue with that one. How do you feel about the prospects for your grandchildren with Ingrid in charge, Prof?
"Although there was evidence available – Hitler was clear about what he wanted to do in Mein Kampf – why did people not pay attention?" Your words(link added), Prof. Pay attention!
Nature is notoriously unpredictable. Climate change is especially subject to right turns by a dynamic environment subject to many internal and external forces engaged in a constant ebb and flow around the earth. Your crystal ball is better than mine if you can accurately predict the future of climate change. But the sample of people above are being quite transparent about their motives and methods. They leave no doubt that people other than themselves are the target. Will you be their willing accomplice Professor or will you stand for freedom against these human haters, these misanthropists?
Don't believe these people are serious? It has already been tried in India and elsewhere. China's one child policy is praised as a global warming solution. Do you support such misanthropy?
With all due respect, sir, you are backing the wrong horse. The CAGW mantra is collapsing under the weight of evidence that the consensus was wrong after all. CO2 , previously demonized, has been exonerated as the modern day witch switch of global warming. More and more scientists are speaking out against the BS of CAGW.
Sir, I would be more worried about the intentions of the people quoted above than the puny effects of CO2 on climate change, a trace gas essential to life on earth. Population stabilization will take care of itself as standards of living rise. We are not the enemy of Nature. Humans are Nature's way of understanding itself and making itself useful.
Students on Ice take high schoolers on expeditions to the West Antarctic Peninsula to experience climate change first hand. A 14 year old girl from my home town in Whitby recently returned from her trip and made the following comment: 'The best part of the experience for me was being away from our crazy consumerism lifestyle and seeing the world in its natural state, unaffected by humans.' The education on climate change is taking hold on the younger generation. Will your grandchildren be among the misanthropists? Will they take up the clarion call of people like James Hansen who endorses books that champion an end to industrial society and massive population reduction?
Ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences. Will this be your grandchildren?
As a holocaust survivor one wonders where you will stand on Agenda 21's population reduction goals?
CO2 was exhaled into the atmosphere during the creation of this post. No living thing was harmed. Some even liked it.
(Although I am picking on the comments of Professor Tomkiewicz the issues discussed here are aimed more generally at the body of alarmists who support the population mitigation goals of the UN's Agenda 21.)
The real reason you are using the denier analogy is because there is no science supporting the CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) thesis and therefore you resort to ad hominem attacks as a last resort. You need a deflection away from the truth in order to put your opponents on the defensive because their criticisms cannot be answered. Changing the subject is a dialogue ruse employed to put the speaker on the offensive instead of addressing the embarrassing points raised by critics.
Well, then, sir, let us examine these statements made by people who support the CAGW theory. It would appear that there is a potential for another genocide brewing among the Agenda 21 folks. They do not seem to like their fellow human beings and call us maggots. Should this be a cause for concern? Perhaps it is you who is the denier.
In my experience people who are skeptical of CAGW have a love of truth and do not want to see science corrupted (too late?) to support political ideologies. But there are those who think differently:
"Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time." ~Club of Rome
But if not democracy then what? Totalitarianism? Rule by the few? Rule by decree? Once granted such power is not easily or willingly relinquished to the democratic process. This sets up a mechanism for genocide especially in the light of comments such as these:
"The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man." ~Club of Rome
"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." ~John Davis, editor of Earth First! journal
"A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer." ~Paul Ehrlich, Stanford
"There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated...It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." ~John Holdren, Obama science czar
"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing." ~Christopher Manes, writer in Earth First!
Will Chris make the first human contribution? Maybe we should just let climate change wipe us all out. Problem solved. Let's burn that coal.
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” ~Ted Turner.
Will Ted lead by example or does he fancy himself as one of the ruling elite passed over by those in charge of population reduction? We won't accomplish that kind of reduction by attrition. Others are not quite so harsh and believe that the earth can support a larger population and will allow others to survive.
"...the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million people but less than one billion." ~Club of Rome. Phew, maybe my progeny and grandchildren will be among the lucky ones.
"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." ~David Brower, Sierra Club. Only after you are finished having your kids, eh, David?
"For the planet’s sake, I hope we have bird flu or some other thing that will reduce the population, because otherwise we’re doomed." ~Susan Blakemore science journalist.
At least she doesn't want to be reincarnated as a virus and do the job herself like charming Prince Philip:
'If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels'.
Here is slug John Davis of Earth First again, lamenting the eradication of small pox. That's it, John. Great idea. Medical care only for the leaders of the population reduction movement all in the name of saving the planet from CO2.
"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems." ~John Davis.
What do you think of that Professor Tomkiewicz? Do you fear for your grandchildren yet? Isn't this guy more frightening than a harmless trace gas like CO2?
"In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day." ~Jacques Cousteau. How Jacques? Tell us how? Oh, not his problem anymore. Gone in 1997.
“The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth - social and environmental.” ~Ingrid Newkirk, former PETA president.
Wow, Ingrid! Are you ready to lead by example? Such lucidity, such clarity. Hard to argue with that one. How do you feel about the prospects for your grandchildren with Ingrid in charge, Prof?
"Although there was evidence available – Hitler was clear about what he wanted to do in Mein Kampf – why did people not pay attention?" Your words(link added), Prof. Pay attention!
Nature is notoriously unpredictable. Climate change is especially subject to right turns by a dynamic environment subject to many internal and external forces engaged in a constant ebb and flow around the earth. Your crystal ball is better than mine if you can accurately predict the future of climate change. But the sample of people above are being quite transparent about their motives and methods. They leave no doubt that people other than themselves are the target. Will you be their willing accomplice Professor or will you stand for freedom against these human haters, these misanthropists?
Don't believe these people are serious? It has already been tried in India and elsewhere. China's one child policy is praised as a global warming solution. Do you support such misanthropy?
With all due respect, sir, you are backing the wrong horse. The CAGW mantra is collapsing under the weight of evidence that the consensus was wrong after all. CO2 , previously demonized, has been exonerated as the modern day witch switch of global warming. More and more scientists are speaking out against the BS of CAGW.
Sir, I would be more worried about the intentions of the people quoted above than the puny effects of CO2 on climate change, a trace gas essential to life on earth. Population stabilization will take care of itself as standards of living rise. We are not the enemy of Nature. Humans are Nature's way of understanding itself and making itself useful.
Students on Ice take high schoolers on expeditions to the West Antarctic Peninsula to experience climate change first hand. A 14 year old girl from my home town in Whitby recently returned from her trip and made the following comment: 'The best part of the experience for me was being away from our crazy consumerism lifestyle and seeing the world in its natural state, unaffected by humans.' The education on climate change is taking hold on the younger generation. Will your grandchildren be among the misanthropists? Will they take up the clarion call of people like James Hansen who endorses books that champion an end to industrial society and massive population reduction?
Ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences. Will this be your grandchildren?
As a holocaust survivor one wonders where you will stand on Agenda 21's population reduction goals?
CO2 was exhaled into the atmosphere during the creation of this post. No living thing was harmed. Some even liked it.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Hyping Hyperbole
James Hansen of global warming fame is moving into Harold Camping territory. Hansen is predicting the end of the world if nations don't start drastically curtailing their CO2 emissions. Hansen is convinced that we are near a tipping point of no return when it comes to global warming.
Hansen conveniently ignores that his own theory is being falsified by reality. The world is not proceeding according to the predictions of IPCC models. A recent study from NOAA, a taxpayer supported climate agency, supports the view that the world is not facing a climate change apocalypse.
Hansen must be reading the public opinion polls and has stepped up his apocalyptic apparitions for the future climate. His imagination is on overdrive in the run-up to RIO+20.
Is he not aware of the failure of previous environmental disaster scenarios? The doomsayers haven't got one right yet. Hansen's current hysterical hyperbole should serve as a reassurance to the rest of us that there is nothing wrong with the planet. Chicken Little's abound and routinely rally the media who seem to love a good scare story. It replenishes ad revenues. But when was the last time that Henny Penny was correct?
James Hansen has founded his own 4H club: Hansen Hysterically Hyping Hyperbole on climate change.
The sky is not falling. The climate change we are witnessing in our time is totally within the limits of natural variability. There is nothing untoward going on. Chill or the climate will do it for you.
James meet Harold!
Hansen conveniently ignores that his own theory is being falsified by reality. The world is not proceeding according to the predictions of IPCC models. A recent study from NOAA, a taxpayer supported climate agency, supports the view that the world is not facing a climate change apocalypse.
Hansen must be reading the public opinion polls and has stepped up his apocalyptic apparitions for the future climate. His imagination is on overdrive in the run-up to RIO+20.
Is he not aware of the failure of previous environmental disaster scenarios? The doomsayers haven't got one right yet. Hansen's current hysterical hyperbole should serve as a reassurance to the rest of us that there is nothing wrong with the planet. Chicken Little's abound and routinely rally the media who seem to love a good scare story. It replenishes ad revenues. But when was the last time that Henny Penny was correct?
James Hansen has founded his own 4H club: Hansen Hysterically Hyping Hyperbole on climate change.
The sky is not falling. The climate change we are witnessing in our time is totally within the limits of natural variability. There is nothing untoward going on. Chill or the climate will do it for you.
James meet Harold!
Friday, May 11, 2012
Home James
"A prominent NASA scientist penned a provocative column in the New York Times Thursday, suggesting the end of civilization could be nigh, thanks to Alberta's 'tar sands.'"
Whoa! Jimmy, take a breath! You are beginning to sound like Harold Camping!
Even your manipulated GISS temp dataset is tracking below your Scenario C. Remember, that's the one where human emissions of CO2 stopped in 2000 and we're BELOW that trend. Sounds like the Earth's temp is not very sensitive to CO2 emissions after all.
Go play in the tar sands of someone else.
CO2 was exhaled during the composition of this post. No living thing was harmed. Some even liked it.
Whoa! Jimmy, take a breath! You are beginning to sound like Harold Camping!
Even your manipulated GISS temp dataset is tracking below your Scenario C. Remember, that's the one where human emissions of CO2 stopped in 2000 and we're BELOW that trend. Sounds like the Earth's temp is not very sensitive to CO2 emissions after all.
Go play in the tar sands of someone else.
CO2 was exhaled during the composition of this post. No living thing was harmed. Some even liked it.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Arctic vs Global Air Temps
From the NIPCC
"In harmony with state-of-the-art AOGCM simulations, the five researchers report that "the Arctic has indeed warmed during the 1970-2008 period by a factor of two to three faster than the global mean." More precisely, the Arctic amplification factor was 2.0 for the low Arctic and 2.9 for the high Arctic. But that is the end of the real world's climate-change agreement with theory. During the 1910-1940 warming, for example, the low Arctic warmed 5.4 times faster than the global mean, while the high Arctic warmed 6.9 times faster. Even more out of line with climate model simulations were the real-world Arctic amplification factors for the 1940-1970 cooling: 9.0 for the low Arctic and 12.5 for the high Arctic."
"Such findings constitute another important example of the principle described (and proven to be correct) by Reifen and Toumi (2009), i.e., that a model that performs well in one time period will not necessarily perform well in another time period. And this incontrovertible fact further suggests that since AOGCMs suffer from this shortcoming, they ought not be considered adequate justification for imposing policy changes, as their simulations of future temperature trends may well be far different from what will actually transpire."
"In harmony with state-of-the-art AOGCM simulations, the five researchers report that "the Arctic has indeed warmed during the 1970-2008 period by a factor of two to three faster than the global mean." More precisely, the Arctic amplification factor was 2.0 for the low Arctic and 2.9 for the high Arctic. But that is the end of the real world's climate-change agreement with theory. During the 1910-1940 warming, for example, the low Arctic warmed 5.4 times faster than the global mean, while the high Arctic warmed 6.9 times faster. Even more out of line with climate model simulations were the real-world Arctic amplification factors for the 1940-1970 cooling: 9.0 for the low Arctic and 12.5 for the high Arctic."
"Such findings constitute another important example of the principle described (and proven to be correct) by Reifen and Toumi (2009), i.e., that a model that performs well in one time period will not necessarily perform well in another time period. And this incontrovertible fact further suggests that since AOGCMs suffer from this shortcoming, they ought not be considered adequate justification for imposing policy changes, as their simulations of future temperature trends may well be far different from what will actually transpire."
Chill! Deep inside you knew it was phony...
We can chill. The evidence is in and CAGW is a myth. Check back regularly. The evidence keeps mounting.
"The second way that scientists sort out human contribution to global warming is that we run climate models." ~~ Heidi Cullen
HADCUT4 confirms models are useless
Most of the predictions produced by the IPCC and their models are contrary to what Nature is revealing. Reality has spoken. Reality is the final arbiter in any scientific debate.
Models overestimate climate sensitivity
NAS confirms Billions wasted on climate models
Here is a model that actually seems to work - it is not from the IPCC and it is NOT based on CO2
Empirical evidence proves IPCC models' positive feedback assumption is incorrect
Models can't predict snowfall
Ocean Heat Content: Climate Models Continue To Fail Miserably At Predicting OHC
The IPCC's Killing Machines: Unable To Predict Accurately, IPCC Climate Models Ultimately Cause Deaths
Chinese Research Documents The Major Failings of IPCC Climate Model Physics - Models Are Wrong
Crunching The "Global Warming" Numbers: Climate Models Horrendous At Predictions, Both Future & Past
New Study: IPCC Climate Models Unable To Predict Arctic Warming With Any Accuracy
"Notorious" Bias Affects IPCC Climate Models - Unable To Successfully Predict Abrupt Climate Changes
IPCC Models Spectacularly Fail Reality Test - Key Predicted Components 'Exaggerated' & 'Overestimated'
This Is What Your Brain Looks Like On Climate Models: Missing Reality
Australian Study Proves Major IPCC Failure: Climate Models Predicted An Increase In Severe Weather - Didn't Happen
Lack of Ocean Heat Affirms Massive Failure By IPCC Climate Models, Latest NOAA Data Shows
Preeminent IPCC Scientist Conducts Research That Reveals Huge Problems With Climate Models
Massive Climate Model Failure: IPCC Models Unable To Predict Pacific Ocean Variability With Any Confidence
IPCC Expert Reviewer To Young Researchers: Beware Climate Models, They Make You Look Stooopid & Lazy
Prediction That Global Warming Causes More Storms Fails Empirical Testing - IPCC Climate Models Wrong
Peer-Reviewed Study Determines Climate Models Wrong: U.S. Flooding Has Not Increased As Predicted
New Research By Atmospheric Scientists Discover That Storm Models Currently Used Are Wrong
UN's IPCC Assessment On Glacier Movement Found To Be Robustly Incorrect - Climate Models Are Wrong Too
Latest Satellite Measurements Confirm Climate Models Wildly Overestimate Atmospheric Warming
Major IPCC Climate Scientist Publishes Paper Listing Significant Failures of Climate Models
Last Week Had The Global Warming Alarmists Admit To Zero Warming Since 1998, Now An Admission That Models Don't Work
Phil Jones? "Warming Over Last 15 Years Is Insignificant, Immaterial, Irrelevant, and Inconsistent With Climate Models"
Researchers Pinpoint Why IPCC Climate Models Fail At Winter Precipitation Predictions: Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
Latest Expert Study: Climate Models Unable To Correctly Simulate Tropical Ocean Warming
New Peer-Reviewed Study Reveals Why Climate Models Are Lousy At Predicting Minimum Temperatures
IPCC Climate Models Underestimate Solar Impact On Global Warming By 6x, EU Astro-Physicists Discover
Gee, maybe they are good for something after all. Check out the next one.
Govt Climate Models Finally Confirm Skeptics' Prediction: Controlling CO2 Emissions Will Not Work
Latest Water Vapor Evidence Confirms IPCC Climate Models Are Wrong, Global Warming Hypothesis Opposite of Reality
IPCC Predicted Warming Would Cause Greater Rainfall: Indian Scientists Determine Models Are Wrong
Scientists Test IPCC Climate Models' Projections of Cyclone Activity Versus Reality: Models Fail, Again
California Mountain Snowfall: Climate Scientists Confirm IPCC "Consensus" Climate Models Are Wrong
Researchers Find That IPCC Climate Models Are of 'Insufficient Capability' - Translation? They're Crappy
So Heidi, how are the models doing so far? There does seem to be a consensus here though. Had enough? There are many more studies which come to the same conclusion. The science is settled.
BTW, Latest NASA Data Confirms That Global Warming Is Not Unequivocal, Not Irreversible, Not
Accelerating, Not Significant
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” - Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” - Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University
If the models don't predict you must indict.
"The second way that scientists sort out human contribution to global warming is that we run climate models." ~~ Heidi Cullen
HADCUT4 confirms models are useless
Most of the predictions produced by the IPCC and their models are contrary to what Nature is revealing. Reality has spoken. Reality is the final arbiter in any scientific debate.
Models overestimate climate sensitivity
NAS confirms Billions wasted on climate models
Here is a model that actually seems to work - it is not from the IPCC and it is NOT based on CO2
Empirical evidence proves IPCC models' positive feedback assumption is incorrect
Models can't predict snowfall
Ocean Heat Content: Climate Models Continue To Fail Miserably At Predicting OHC
The IPCC's Killing Machines: Unable To Predict Accurately, IPCC Climate Models Ultimately Cause Deaths
Chinese Research Documents The Major Failings of IPCC Climate Model Physics - Models Are Wrong
Crunching The "Global Warming" Numbers: Climate Models Horrendous At Predictions, Both Future & Past
New Study: IPCC Climate Models Unable To Predict Arctic Warming With Any Accuracy
"Notorious" Bias Affects IPCC Climate Models - Unable To Successfully Predict Abrupt Climate Changes
IPCC Models Spectacularly Fail Reality Test - Key Predicted Components 'Exaggerated' & 'Overestimated'
This Is What Your Brain Looks Like On Climate Models: Missing Reality
Australian Study Proves Major IPCC Failure: Climate Models Predicted An Increase In Severe Weather - Didn't Happen
Lack of Ocean Heat Affirms Massive Failure By IPCC Climate Models, Latest NOAA Data Shows
Preeminent IPCC Scientist Conducts Research That Reveals Huge Problems With Climate Models
Massive Climate Model Failure: IPCC Models Unable To Predict Pacific Ocean Variability With Any Confidence
IPCC Expert Reviewer To Young Researchers: Beware Climate Models, They Make You Look Stooopid & Lazy
Prediction That Global Warming Causes More Storms Fails Empirical Testing - IPCC Climate Models Wrong
Peer-Reviewed Study Determines Climate Models Wrong: U.S. Flooding Has Not Increased As Predicted
New Research By Atmospheric Scientists Discover That Storm Models Currently Used Are Wrong
UN's IPCC Assessment On Glacier Movement Found To Be Robustly Incorrect - Climate Models Are Wrong Too
Latest Satellite Measurements Confirm Climate Models Wildly Overestimate Atmospheric Warming
Major IPCC Climate Scientist Publishes Paper Listing Significant Failures of Climate Models
Last Week Had The Global Warming Alarmists Admit To Zero Warming Since 1998, Now An Admission That Models Don't Work
Phil Jones? "Warming Over Last 15 Years Is Insignificant, Immaterial, Irrelevant, and Inconsistent With Climate Models"
Researchers Pinpoint Why IPCC Climate Models Fail At Winter Precipitation Predictions: Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
Latest Expert Study: Climate Models Unable To Correctly Simulate Tropical Ocean Warming
New Peer-Reviewed Study Reveals Why Climate Models Are Lousy At Predicting Minimum Temperatures
IPCC Climate Models Underestimate Solar Impact On Global Warming By 6x, EU Astro-Physicists Discover
Gee, maybe they are good for something after all. Check out the next one.
Govt Climate Models Finally Confirm Skeptics' Prediction: Controlling CO2 Emissions Will Not Work
Latest Water Vapor Evidence Confirms IPCC Climate Models Are Wrong, Global Warming Hypothesis Opposite of Reality
IPCC Predicted Warming Would Cause Greater Rainfall: Indian Scientists Determine Models Are Wrong
Scientists Test IPCC Climate Models' Projections of Cyclone Activity Versus Reality: Models Fail, Again
California Mountain Snowfall: Climate Scientists Confirm IPCC "Consensus" Climate Models Are Wrong
Researchers Find That IPCC Climate Models Are of 'Insufficient Capability' - Translation? They're Crappy
So Heidi, how are the models doing so far? There does seem to be a consensus here though. Had enough? There are many more studies which come to the same conclusion. The science is settled.
BTW, Latest NASA Data Confirms That Global Warming Is Not Unequivocal, Not Irreversible, Not
Accelerating, Not Significant
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” - Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” - Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University
If the models don't predict you must indict.
Lightning strike due to AGW?
Stats from National Weather Service in the USA.
Thirty year trend for lightning is 55 deaths per year. The 1940s saw an average annual death rate of 329. In contrast the first decade of the new millennium saw a death rate of 39. This is quite a difference. We are safer now. I suspect that the incidents of lightning strikes are no different between then and now but humans have adapted technologically to the presence of lightning with better lightning safety devices (lightning rods) and awareness. Either that or an increase in CO2 causes a decrease in lightning strikes. Where's a smiley when you need one. CO2 is indeed a magical gas. There seems to be no end to its ability to cause bad things to happen to good people.
Temps in Maine are not increasing. Shoshana Zuboff has been misled about that. We are glad she survived her encounter with a lightning bolt.
"From her story it appears that Ms. Zuboff has indeed been a victim but not of global warming, but of the indoctrination of the environmental movement." Art Horn
CO2 was exhaled during the composition of this post. No living thing was harmed. Some even liked it.
Thirty year trend for lightning is 55 deaths per year. The 1940s saw an average annual death rate of 329. In contrast the first decade of the new millennium saw a death rate of 39. This is quite a difference. We are safer now. I suspect that the incidents of lightning strikes are no different between then and now but humans have adapted technologically to the presence of lightning with better lightning safety devices (lightning rods) and awareness. Either that or an increase in CO2 causes a decrease in lightning strikes. Where's a smiley when you need one. CO2 is indeed a magical gas. There seems to be no end to its ability to cause bad things to happen to good people.
Temps in Maine are not increasing. Shoshana Zuboff has been misled about that. We are glad she survived her encounter with a lightning bolt.
"From her story it appears that Ms. Zuboff has indeed been a victim but not of global warming, but of the indoctrination of the environmental movement." Art Horn
CO2 was exhaled during the composition of this post. No living thing was harmed. Some even liked it.
Another warmist is expressing doubts
Former hero of the German environmental movement: "we have been misguided by the IPCC about the natural fluctuations in the climate in the past thousands of years" ~ Fritz Vahrenholt
RIO+20
It is coming in June 2012. And at this conference (party) Agenda 21 will be pushed hard.
Some fear it.
And with good reason.
Liberty. Do you value it? Many don't and they will be at RIO+20.
Here is the history.
Some fear it.
And with good reason.
Liberty. Do you value it? Many don't and they will be at RIO+20.
Here is the history.
Groupthink
Very important article at Watts Up with that.
"Groupthink was extensively studied by Yale psychologist Irving L. Janis and described in his 1982 book Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes.'
The concepts elucidated by Janis seem to fit the CAGW crowd like a glove. If the glove fits you must commit.
We were warned by Presdsident Eisenhower that government could become hostage to a technological elite.
"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."
The CAGW concept has done just that. The expense and waste of the false human induced CO2 global warming belief should be a lesson that brings more oversight of government allocation of funds for scientific research. How do you guard against groupthink?
"Groupthink was extensively studied by Yale psychologist Irving L. Janis and described in his 1982 book Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes.'
The concepts elucidated by Janis seem to fit the CAGW crowd like a glove. If the glove fits you must commit.
We were warned by Presdsident Eisenhower that government could become hostage to a technological elite.
"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."
The CAGW concept has done just that. The expense and waste of the false human induced CO2 global warming belief should be a lesson that brings more oversight of government allocation of funds for scientific research. How do you guard against groupthink?
Connect the Dots
The 'connect the dots' idea originated at the 350.org web site. "On 5/5/12 people from around the world highlighted the effects of recent severe weather and climate change." Or so they say.
But extreme weather has always been with us and happens less frequently than in the past. This project could have been done in almost any year that you care to investigate. 1911, 1927, 1936 are some examples of years of severe weather that occurred prior to CO2 concentration crossing the ominous 350ppm boundary between so called increasing severe weather times and the idyllic(sarc) weather of the past.
These facts betray the 'Connect the Dots' campaign as a publicity stunt run by people who want to 'win' on the issue of climate change and who have no interest in informing the public about contradictory facts. They seek to fill their minds with confirmation bias and to ignore the cognitive dissonance created by weather history. And yet, it is always the interplay between the two that allows the truth to be distilled. At 350.org they have failed to 'connect the dots' to advance human knowledge and prefer instead to live in their delusional world. They do a disservice to themselves and their readers by purveying the nonsense that the severe weather of today is a result of climate change caused by the human burning of fossil fuels. Their actions are shameful. They are true deniers.
Politics and religion are filled with emotional drivers that often lead us into dark alleys. The people of 350.org will remain in the dark until they realize they must turn around in order to find the light of reason. Darkness envelopes willful ignorance. It is difficult to say what will lead the members of 350.org to the realization that they are backing the wrong horse. No matter how they twist no matter how they turn no matter how they flip no matter how they flop sooner or later reality will slap them in the face and they will experience the embarrassment and shame that comes with the final admission that they were wrong. Don't expect it any time soon. And they will probably just hop aboard the next apocalyptic issue to come along completely oblivious to their habit.
How do you tell the difference between low CO2 snow and high CO2 snow? They are both white.
Low CO2 tornadoes kill people. But tornado deaths are trending down since 1880. CO2 exonerated.
Bad weather happens. Much of it was more severe in the past especially in terms of lives lost. Modern technology provides early warnings which allows us to take protective action.
How about 1847? Does any of this sound familiar?
1847: Hurricane Blasts Havana and Key West, Florida
1847: Bitter Cold & Snow Cause Miserable Winter In France, Spain & Switzerland
1847: Severe Drought In Holland Dried Up Most Of The Wells
1847: Heat & Drought Cause Famine and Food Riots In France
1847: New South Wales, Australia Again Hit With Bad Drought
1847: Australia's Aborigines Say White Man Has Changed The Climate
1847: Winter Cold Brings -34F Temperatures To Dartmouth College Campus
Hot and cold. Famine. Hurricanes. White men blamed for climate change. Where have we heard that before?
In more primitive times we blamed bad weather on angry gods or witches. Now we blame CO2.
CO2 is the modern witch of climate change. And just as innocent.
When 350.org connect the dots they create a muddled picture. For clarity we need to remove the emotion and carefully consider reality. They prefer the bogeymen of their imagination.
We do not have to buy into their delusion.
Connect the dots below and you get a decreasing trend.
But extreme weather has always been with us and happens less frequently than in the past. This project could have been done in almost any year that you care to investigate. 1911, 1927, 1936 are some examples of years of severe weather that occurred prior to CO2 concentration crossing the ominous 350ppm boundary between so called increasing severe weather times and the idyllic(sarc) weather of the past.
These facts betray the 'Connect the Dots' campaign as a publicity stunt run by people who want to 'win' on the issue of climate change and who have no interest in informing the public about contradictory facts. They seek to fill their minds with confirmation bias and to ignore the cognitive dissonance created by weather history. And yet, it is always the interplay between the two that allows the truth to be distilled. At 350.org they have failed to 'connect the dots' to advance human knowledge and prefer instead to live in their delusional world. They do a disservice to themselves and their readers by purveying the nonsense that the severe weather of today is a result of climate change caused by the human burning of fossil fuels. Their actions are shameful. They are true deniers.
Politics and religion are filled with emotional drivers that often lead us into dark alleys. The people of 350.org will remain in the dark until they realize they must turn around in order to find the light of reason. Darkness envelopes willful ignorance. It is difficult to say what will lead the members of 350.org to the realization that they are backing the wrong horse. No matter how they twist no matter how they turn no matter how they flip no matter how they flop sooner or later reality will slap them in the face and they will experience the embarrassment and shame that comes with the final admission that they were wrong. Don't expect it any time soon. And they will probably just hop aboard the next apocalyptic issue to come along completely oblivious to their habit.
How do you tell the difference between low CO2 snow and high CO2 snow? They are both white.
Low CO2 tornadoes kill people. But tornado deaths are trending down since 1880. CO2 exonerated.
Bad weather happens. Much of it was more severe in the past especially in terms of lives lost. Modern technology provides early warnings which allows us to take protective action.
How about 1847? Does any of this sound familiar?
1847: Hurricane Blasts Havana and Key West, Florida
1847: Bitter Cold & Snow Cause Miserable Winter In France, Spain & Switzerland
1847: Severe Drought In Holland Dried Up Most Of The Wells
1847: Heat & Drought Cause Famine and Food Riots In France
1847: New South Wales, Australia Again Hit With Bad Drought
1847: Australia's Aborigines Say White Man Has Changed The Climate
1847: Winter Cold Brings -34F Temperatures To Dartmouth College Campus
Hot and cold. Famine. Hurricanes. White men blamed for climate change. Where have we heard that before?
In more primitive times we blamed bad weather on angry gods or witches. Now we blame CO2.
CO2 is the modern witch of climate change. And just as innocent.
When 350.org connect the dots they create a muddled picture. For clarity we need to remove the emotion and carefully consider reality. They prefer the bogeymen of their imagination.
We do not have to buy into their delusion.
Connect the dots below and you get a decreasing trend.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Climate observations 2012
How do the observations measure up to the predictions and expectations of IPCC and other warmist champions? Randall Hoven takes a look and CAGW is MIA.
Global Weirding
On any day at any time somewhere in the world the weather is weird. Somewhere the weather is not behaving as people in that part of the world would expect for the time of year. This is normal. We live in a dynamic atmosphere that is subject to varying forces such as tidal, solar, cosmic, volcanic, tectonic and human. Their interplay will create unique conditions at different places at different times around the earth. Variability and 'weirdness' are to be expected. What would be unusual is stasis - an idyllic unchanging weather pattern for an area. Stasis cannot be frozen into the atmosphere for change is what the climate does. What would be the idyllic climate where you are? When has it happened for more than a few days at a time? Conditions put into motion other variables thus upsetting the idyllic state. This is normal for our planet. How could it be otherwise?
Would your 'normal' be the same as 'normal' for someone else in another location?
To what year should we return? What year had idyllic weather? Why do you consider that year to be idyllic?
Is there anything that would convince you that humans are not the main driver of climate change?
Did you know that most instances of severe weather have been on the decrease with rising atmospheric CO2 concentration? Surprised?
Perhaps the correct conclusion is that increases in CO2 calm the weather.
Funny comment by Alan the Brit
No, no, you are all wrong I tell you! The old crone next door spat into her tea cup & told me in truth, I guarantee that somewhere around the world, there will be freak weather, storms, hail, snow, thunder, lightening, heavy rain, drought, sunshine, cloudiness, unusual cold, unusual warmth, dust storms, light rain, mist, fog, low cloud, high cloud, freak waves, no waves, some waves, melting ice, freezing water, we must act now before it’s too late to stop these things happening it’s just so unnatural, weird & disruptive, it’s never happened in the past……………have I missed anything? Sarc off ;-)
Get a grip people. Weather happens and change is what the climate does.
Would your 'normal' be the same as 'normal' for someone else in another location?
To what year should we return? What year had idyllic weather? Why do you consider that year to be idyllic?
Is there anything that would convince you that humans are not the main driver of climate change?
Did you know that most instances of severe weather have been on the decrease with rising atmospheric CO2 concentration? Surprised?
Perhaps the correct conclusion is that increases in CO2 calm the weather.
Funny comment by Alan the Brit
No, no, you are all wrong I tell you! The old crone next door spat into her tea cup & told me in truth, I guarantee that somewhere around the world, there will be freak weather, storms, hail, snow, thunder, lightening, heavy rain, drought, sunshine, cloudiness, unusual cold, unusual warmth, dust storms, light rain, mist, fog, low cloud, high cloud, freak waves, no waves, some waves, melting ice, freezing water, we must act now before it’s too late to stop these things happening it’s just so unnatural, weird & disruptive, it’s never happened in the past……………have I missed anything? Sarc off ;-)
Get a grip people. Weather happens and change is what the climate does.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Home Run Rise?
Washington Post chief meteorologist Jason Samenow vouched for the
validity of Fox Sports Major League Baseball announcer Tim McCarver’s
weekend comment that there could be a correlation between the rise in
home runs throughout the 20th century and the rise in global temperature.
Bamboozled
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been
bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the Bamboozle.
We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The Bamboozle has
captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge – even to ourselves
– that we’ve been so credulous.”
-Carl Sagan
This describes the current climate change hysteria in the world to perfection. Scientists that have made their careers by warning of impending doom if we don't stop climate change, as if that were possible, are so entrenched in their myth that they have deluded themselves into discounting any contrary evidence and allowed the emotions of their politics to lead them into dark alleys.
Kudos to James Lovelock for turning around and walking back into the light. He is a real scientist.
Don't expect it of Michael Mann whose arrogance blinds him to reality. He admits only confirming instances of reality and ignores all instances of cognitive dissonance. That is not how science is done.
-Carl Sagan
This describes the current climate change hysteria in the world to perfection. Scientists that have made their careers by warning of impending doom if we don't stop climate change, as if that were possible, are so entrenched in their myth that they have deluded themselves into discounting any contrary evidence and allowed the emotions of their politics to lead them into dark alleys.
Kudos to James Lovelock for turning around and walking back into the light. He is a real scientist.
Don't expect it of Michael Mann whose arrogance blinds him to reality. He admits only confirming instances of reality and ignores all instances of cognitive dissonance. That is not how science is done.
Good Grief! Chill!
The planet is fine. It is resilient. Not so sure about some humans though. Some seem to love indulging in hysteria. Can they not live without FEAR and a sidedish of GUILT as motivators? Must there always be drama? We may need psychological programs to help them cope with the good news.
Change is what the climate does and somewhere everyday the weather is weird. It's normal. Nothing unusual is happening. Back in the 1920s people were worried about rising temperatures, a melting Arctic and rising sea levels. They speculated on what would happen if the trend continued just like we do. We're still waiting for the disaster. In the 1970s we were worried about a coming ice age because scientists detected a falling trend in temperatures. That should tell us that climate change is cyclical. It's a cycle, it's a cycle, it's a cycle!
There is reason to believe that temps have peaked and have started on the downside part of the cycle. Even James Lovelock, champion of the GAIA concept now admits temps have not risen for 15 years even as CO2 has continued its meteoric rise in our atmosphere. That's a disconnect between theory and reality and reality is always the final arbiter in deciding which human climate theory survives. Reality trumps theory!
Bye, Bye, CAGW.
Isn't this good news? It means that all of the 'green' policies that governments have pursued were completely unnecessary. We don't have to subsidize alternative forms of energy like solar, wind and biofuels, ban the incandescent bulb, use reusable bags, grow food to burn in our cars or live in FEAR and feel GUILTY for using fossil fuels. Except for the billions and billions of dollars wasted on climate research and these unnecessary programs we should rejoice at our good fortune of being liberated from the climate hysteria. We can continue to use the cheapest fuel available until the next cheapest fuel becomes necessary. And shale oil and gas has arrived to keep the standard of living on an upward trend for all the new people in the pipeline. Again, there is hope for the poor!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
