In the News

More confusion on the “it’s just weather” versus “it’s proof of global warming” front: “Scientific evidence about the rising of average global temperatures seems to be piling up. According to the Japan Meteorological Agency, average global temperatures in April, May and June this year were the highest since the beginning of official records, in 1891.”

Now try using the coldest three months to “disprove” global warming.  No, that does not work—it’s not global.  Neither is Japan, but that doesn’t stop the warmists froom claiming tat proves something.  Correction, this is global.  (Thank you, Benny.)  However, using the coldest months still cannot be done even if it’s global.  Should the graph turn downward, I cannot see global warming advocates saying that proves that their theory should be questioned.  Only when the graph continues up do they count the direction.

(Deleted due to misreading of article and far too much haste on my part.  Apologies.)

I am curious where all of the heat is.  So many places have cold records set yet the global temperature keeps rising.  At first, I went with the idea that local is different and “official” records are what we go by.  Yet, Al Gore was greated by record cold in Australia.  The US had record cold—the news media even revivied the “polar vortex” term, modified of course for summer.  How is it that so many places keep setting cold records and yet the average global temperature keeps rising?

And other such rediculous statement: For those of you who wonder why people reject global warming, maybe they recognize chicken little and the boy who cried wolf in the “science”.  Why would people believe something causes virtually everything bad that ever happens.  That’s a fairy tale, and gets getting to be a boring one at that.  Stop blaming skeptics for people not listening and try checking the mirror.  You are your own worst enemy.

On the News Front

Thank you to a reader for alerting me to Australia finally repealing its carbon tax.  Way to go, Australia!

From the “Can you believe it” bin:

Really, global warming?  How much heat does it take for how long to melt enough ice for the ground to “pop like a champagne cork”?  If it happened as quickly as the young lady seems to be speculating, there wasn’t much ice in the first place.

Remember when all of this was a fascinating study of natural phenomena, mysteries to be solved and not constantly spun into end of the world scenarios?  I so miss those days.

It was cool here in the Rocky Mountains and it RAINED!  I drove home on a gravel “river” and through multiple low spots filled with water yesterday afternoon.  Yesterday we had 1.1 inches of rain and Tuesday we had .41 inches.  This is a huge amount of rain for Casper.  Washed out a lot of our road again.  Of course, I don’t have to water for a couple of days!  And my area didn’t get hailed upon like others did.  The lightening was incredible during the storms.  The heat is coming back, however, and it’s forecast to be in the 90′s for a week or so.  

Water across the road

Water across the road

heavy rain

heavy rain


We have to act NOW

One of the common claims in global warming is that we see a trend and we have to act.  Never mind that our models don’t predict accurately, never mind we only just beginning to understand climate, a system that is so incredibly complex our supercomputers cannot handle all of the data and calculations with any reasonable degree of resolution, never mind that the models make very different predictions from one another—no, it does not matter.   We MUST act.  

This is in and of itself NOT science in any way.  Science does not act on half the needed evidence.  Science does not fill in data where it’s missing because we have to act on the sparse data we have.  Science does not say “it’s too important”.  Science waits for the data to actually come in.  It rejects excessive interpolations and estimates, as in very rarely uses them.  Science knows that lack of data can easily lead to false conclusions.  Science cares that it might.

Politics is interested only in achieving its own goals and cares nothing of the truth.  Half-baked data, missing data, little or no data—matters not. The seriousness of the potential situational outcomes is all that counts.  Count we all die?  Is it probable?  Does not matter.  Only “could we”. Dive in, declare an emergency and act in a way that furthers your politcal career.  Don’t ask questions, listen to the “authorities”.  Silence all who would question or point out the emperor has no clothes.  Threaten them with death and jail.  Claim the high moral ground.  Demand you be listened to and insult and deride all who don’t.  Politics can win an argument that pink unicorns exist and are a danger to society if it’s phrase properly and repeated often enough.

Global warming—which catagory does that fall into?  I’ll let you make your own choice.

Blame it on the Drought which we then blame on Climate Change

In the never-ending march of global warming is now the weather and all bad things are due to people, I have found two interesting claims.

1.  The tumbleweed invasion of last year in my state was due to the drought.  Actually, it appears to be the end of the drought that encouraged the tumbleweeds, not the drought itself.  Of course, no news person is going to say “Tumbleweeds are appearing and may mean the end of the drought” because that does not fit the narrative.

2.  The drought is bringing Mormon crickets to the West.  Again, I haven’t seem Mormon crickets in any number of years.  The sea gulls haven’t even been out looking for the bugs.  Until this year, when the rain returned.  Thus far, the sea gulls have not yet flown in, but I have faith they will be flying in soon.

Now, yes, these are anecdotal.  Over a period of ten to twelve years of drought and another 20 years of no drought.  A magical 30 year period.  Maybe it’s coincidence, maybe not.  It does, however, give me ample pause in considering whether or not there is honesty in the claims made concerning global warming.  If the media presents a picture that does not match reality, they do harm to their “news” because people stop listening.  

Scientific badger

Scientific badger



Okay, someone rearranged WordPress and my screen is all different! Arggghhhhh!!! Don’t they know change is bad? (TeeHee.)

I am busy with gardening, weed cutting (except the milkweeds—I want to help save the monarchs! Of course, my not very bright ducks might eat the milkweed, so I have to fence the area off.), mowing and so forth. Plus, I’m not a fan of heat in the first place.

This blog is not forgotten, however, and I will try to update as often as possible.

The one observation I have for today is how for years and years the media and climate science screamed that “weather is not climate” yet every news broadcast now tells us “weather is climate”. So my question is, when did weather become climate? Why didn’t we all get the memo?

As for the weather, pretty uneventful. It’s hot in California and things have been burning. Happens every single year.  Things actually have been burning in other places, but the fire season seems off to a slow start. It’s hot in many places—we call that summer. There are storm warnings frequently—we also call that summer. Anyone who has lived in the Midwest knows tornadoes are part of summer and you deal with them. So is flooding. So move along folks, nothing new here.


I have finished my climate class, though I still have to get the notebook in order and print out more of the slides.  The class was basically a series of Powerpoint presentations (then distilled to an mp4 file).  There were PDF’s for the transcripts, but no easy way to get the slides one needed.  Many slides had complex equations, drawings and graphs, so it’s desirable to have printouts.  I finally found a method for pulling the slides and printing them out other than screenshots, which are something of a pain to do.

Having finished the class, I have to say that my opinion of climate science pretty much remains the same, perhaps somewhat diminished.  So much of what is studied is not well-understood.  I did learn why modelers use “parameterizations” for clouds and other such things—lack of computer power in part.  At the resolution needed to model such small (localized) events, it would take months of calculations.  However, more interesting was that the professor did say that even if all the input parts are correct, they really do not know if the whole is correct.  He likened it to a huge circuit, where you know all the parts work, but the circuit can still fail when put together.  This is something that has bothered me all along—all the parts individually work, but there is not a real way to know if the parts work when put together.  There may be missing parts, interactions not seen when viewing components separately, etc.  The professor also showed a case where two model predicted exactly opposite outcomes.

“Stickman” will have more to add concerning the class later on.  He’s in the process of writing up the slides!


On the subject of wildfires, I have an experiment to show why heat is not the main component to wildfires and a hotter world need not have more fires.

Go out to your charcoal barbeque, toss in a match and come back in an hour.  Any fire?  No?  Add charcoal and repeat the process.  Maybe fire?  Maybe not?  Add lighter fluid, toss in match and return in an hour.  Fire!  (Unless you used an inadequate amount of fluid, of course.)  Now, very carefully, point a fan in the direction of the grill.  More fire and larger flames?  Probably.  Try this in the winter and summer to compare the results at various temps.

What have we learned?  First, there’s no fire without fuel.  Doesn’t matter how hot it is.  Second, wind affects the fire size.  More wind, more fire.  Now, if the world warms, the increase in temperature will not be the deciding factor in wildfires.  IF there is increased wind, that will be a problem.  However, if you remove the fuel, you greatly reduce the chance of fire.  Only by clearing the fuel do we start to decrease the effects of wildfires.  Since environmentalists often seem opposed to this, one has to wonder if they are trying desperately and cruelly to increase the number of fires to promote their agenda.  We hope not, but the evidence is certainly leaning in that direction.

Also, no amount of “climate change mitigation” will stop or reduce the number of wildfires.  Climate does not make fire, except in the case of lightening. Having seen the black circles where lightening struck ground with virtually no fuel, I can attest to the absence of fuel as a very effective means of limiting said fires.  Yes, forests will still burn.  We call that nature.  (Interesting note:  Humans cause more fires, but nature burns more acres.  Perhaps because we now let fires burn in wilderness areas.  I’m not sure.)


On the “how ridiculous can you get and please don’t answer that side”:  School lunches are reportedly going to be based on global warming concerns.  What does that mean?  Who knows?  I’m betting that it means a huge amount of wasted food, much like that which occurred after Michelle Obama decided to alter the lunches.  How can throwing away more and more food help the planet?  Unless…….Let’s not go there.  It’s really, really getting out of hand.  Soon people will just start laughing when someone mentions global warming, or commit an act of assault out of frustration.  Reality just derailed—over the cliff and barreling toward the ground below.


I was reminded again that the debate on climate change is one of emotion and overlooking the flaws in your side’s behaviours. Error’s made by skeptics are often overlooked by skeptics, irregardless of the seriousness of the error, using any excuse available. It’s quite interesting that skeptics have “science” on their side yet fail to use it and overlook the exact same behaviours they criticize in warmists. If it’s not about facts and accuracy, then there’s really no point to the discussion. Let’s just put on joisting suits and settle this once and for all. May the loudest, fastest group win and “the science then be settled”.

It is interesting that skeptics constantly deride Mann and others for their ad hominems, but they themselves see nothing wrong with fabricating a persona for a commenter and addressing the commenter as if the persona were real. Accusations fly and taunting, which if done by a warmest, is evil and bad. There is an incredible amount of hypocrisy in skeptics behaviours. They will defend the ad hominems, fabricated personas, etc by saying “you started it”. Really, who started with Mann? I believe that was skeptics. So it’s okay to make fun of, taunt and vilify the opposition, but it’s wrong if it’s directed at a skeptic? Then it’s a logical fallacy, off topic, etc. Sheer unadultered hypocrisy. This is not about science for all skeptics, obviously.


Lastly, I am wondering when the El Nino that was predicted might show up in Wyoming.  Snow is predicted in the western mountains tonight.  Wednesday’s high is to be mid-6o’s (F) and there are freeze warnings for the second time on the western half of the state.  We do have those phenomenal Wyoming winds.  The ones that cycle from 10 mph to 40 mph and back in 10 minutes or less.  Must be extremely tough on the power plants trying  to keep up with the fluctuations in power courtesy of the 19th century power solutions pushed by greens and rewarded by the government with huge grants and tax breaks.  I’m sure the power plant operators have all kinds of things to say about this.

Winds were high enough to blow over the neighbor’s tin shed and there was lightening the other night that was phenomenal!  It reminds me of the early 80′s when I first moved to Wyoming.  Same weather pattern—wet, cold and windy.  I’m hoping this means more snow and colder winters.  We will see soon enough. Meantime, my garden really doesn’t need frost for now.

Update: June 17th The Beartooth Highway is closed due to snow and there are freeze warnings over much of the western side of Wyoming.