And the “winner” is…..

There are members of the Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry who are calling on the media not call skeptics “skeptics”, but rather “deniers”. One can only think they are angry that skeptics of climate change have done so well while the Skeptical Inquiry folks maybe not so much so. Signers of the petition include Bill Nye, the comedian/actor guy and James Randi, the “appeal to authority” champion and religion/paranormal hater. There are also science writers, journalists, and a film producer. Remember when attacks were constantly made on genuine scientists who signed petitions saying they disagreed with global warming being a huge problem? Now, as seen with J. Cook, anyone can chime in as long as they are on the global warming side. New criteria–you’re only a scientist if WE say so. It’s interesting that skepticism is now defined by dogma and the threat of “if you’re not with us, you’re denying science” when at one time it was just asking questions of science and for data and proof. It appears those days are long gone as far as these individuals are concerned. (One also wonders if this is in part because those who tore apart pseudoscience are very uncomfortable having the same skeptical eye turned on their beliefs.)

This is really not all that surprising. The unskeptical “Skeptical Science” has been out there for years. Psychologically, it seems to be a case of “if you can’t convince them with facts (perhaps because you have so few), then club them with nasty names and shrieking. “Plus, you can claim the name “skeptic” is taken and “denier” is the only remaining name for those not following the designated truths.

I dropped reading many of the conventional skeptic sites when it became apparent that much of what they believed or did not believe was based on appeal to authority, or a hatred of religion and paranormal phenomena. (Note: Religion cannot be proven by science and trying to dissect it with science shows a lack of understanding of both science and religion.) So-called “skeptics” seem to follow the appeal to authority in part because many lack the science education that would let them form their own questions and theories and in part because it’s a CYA move, allowing them to blame scientists for any failed theory. Since they are not scientists, they cannot be held responsible for advocating what turns out to actually be pseudoscience or very bad science.

There’s a question of what the “deniers” are denying. If the scientists are skeptical, are the deniers denying that the scientists are skeptical? What parts of science specifically are they denying? Are they simply questioning if the theory is sufficiently developed to keep pouring billions into measures that do not seem effective and actually are very damaging to the environment? Are they denying that money and politics are the way to “solve” the “problem” as presented–is it really scientific to believe money, socialism and a return to pre-industrial lives are the only possible solution to the dilemma?

The entire proposal bodes very badly for science. Theory of global warming appears to be crumbling due to that lack of statistically significant warming in RSS temperature measurements, there are studies that show the ocean may not be warming as much as believed and people snowed under with 8 feet of snow are not very willing to believe “warming causes cooling”. The science is not convincing to many, including some who work in the field and associated fields and many who have examined the science and found it lacking. Rather than answer questions about the science, the “scientists” (in quotes because no real scientist would ever behave this way) call names, and refuse to address the problem. Those who do try to answer often give explanations that are lacking in believability and science to back them up. Too many of the activists in the field have made wild predictions and statements (ice-free arctic by “X” date, boiling oceans, etc) and these were allowed to stand. Sadly, at this point, the science has basically lost its credibility. All that’s left is name-hoarding, ad hominem attacks and trying to suppress opinions.

Another disturbing trend is trying to “market” the science. That seems to fall under the “if you can’t win them with facts (because you lack such things), dazzle them with BS” or terrify them with promises of a horrible, hot, wet future if they don’t go along with your “solutions”. There’s even an attempt to figure out a way to market to specific political preferences by rewording the solutions to disguise the real intent. Marketing science is truly a desperate attempt at replacing facts and data with BS and fear. Climate science has dragged science into tap dancing, threatening and smearing tactics in an effort to “win” with their theory. They simply cannot admit that the theory may be flawed and needs further research to explain the lack of warming, the natural variations and the failed predictions. Climate science is now playing the role the Church did in suppressing and vilifying Galileo, something science criticized religion for doing. The hypocrisy just screams out at you: “It’s not about science, it’s about winning”.

So much for green energy and CO2 savings

From Breitbart:

“The 12-day UN climate change summit in Peru has generated more carbon dioxide than an entire African country. The talks, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, generated more than 50,000 tonnes of CO2, as more than 12,500 politicians, green activists, diplomats and journalists jetted in to Lima.”

“Jorge Alvarez, coordinator for the UN Development Programme, said the carbon emissions were so high because plans to run the summit on green energy did not work out. The conference has instead been powered by diesel generators.”

If one looks at the actions of these people who are so concerned about climate change and saving humanity, one can only conclude they are either liars or fools.  As always, actions speak volumes above words.




What is Global Warming? (a simple explanation)

What is “global warming”?

We hear a lot about “global warming” or climate change. Right now, the United States is setting hundreds of new “coldest temperature” records. Doesn’t that mean global warming is wrong? It’s really hot in Australia right now. New high temperature records, they say. So does that mean global warming is right?

(I use global warming and not climate change because the theory is heat is building up on earth. This is believed to be causing changes in climate that are not “natural”.)

Colder temperatures do not disprove global warming. Hot temperatures do not prove it is true. Nor do wildfires, drought, or any other weather variation. Global warming is based on changes in the average temperature of the planet. What does that mean?

Average is what you get when you add a group of numbers together and divide by the number of numbers. Here are two examples:

1 3 5 2 9 summed(added together) equals 20 then divide by 5: 4

2 2 12 1 3 summed equals 20 then divide by 5: 4

5 0 5 5 5 summed equals 20 then divide by 5: 4

25 75 100 -10 30 summed equals 220 divide by 5: 44

15 85 50 0 70 summed equals 220 divide by 5: 44

5 95 20 50 50 summed equals 220 divide by 5: 44

If you look at the numbers closely, you will see the numbers are very different in each set, even though the averages are the same. Which means you can have really, really different numbers and all give the same average. Colder in the United States can be cancelled by hotter in Australia. There are thousands of temperatures involved. This means scientists really don’t know how temperature changes will happen in a particular place. To make this more complicated, scientists look at the changes from the average, not the average itself. All of this is quite complicated and based on math and models. In reality, things are far from certain, no one really can predict year and years into the future.

What does this all mean in real life? The warming predicted has leveled off. Over time, the warming could become cooling, but we don’t know this yet. We just do not know.

Are we having more hurricanes and storms? No, those things are predicted by the theory. They are not currently happening. In some places, these weather events have actually decreased.

Right now, all the global warming is in models and so forth. In reality, the temperatures have leveled off. Are the dire predictions that keep being made possible? Of course. It’s also possible that cooling could begin. No one, repeat no one, knows. To be afraid or start doing drastic things like trying to stop the use of fossil fuels is to not understand what science tells us.

What is this “early winter” nonsense?

I just left a blog where the writer said the weather was a month ahead of the start of winter, December 21st.  Have people become so ignorant that they do not understand that weather does NOT follow a calendar?  It would seem so.

Winter starts when winter starts, just as summer, fall and spring.  Our calendar has zero effect on what weather we get.  It was bad enough when we determined that we were killing the planet with CO2 (The “It’s not warming, It’s dying” campaign), now we are upset because the foolish weather cannot follow a calendar.  It’s becoming more and more clear how global warming sells.  There is a complete lack of understanding of, or caring about, what actual weather is and does.

So, for those who don’t get it:  Weather is NOT bound by any human creation, certainly not a calendar.  It’s cold and snowing now because it is.  It could September, it could be May.  The weather DOES NOT CARE.

Scientific badger cannot take it some days…...

Scientific badger cannot take it some days……

And now the NEW theory on global warming

“So within about a decade the effect of adding the thicker ‘blanket’ has been cancelled by the warmer body emitting more energy, the experts explained.

In the longer term, the study and its computer models show that the Earth will begin to absorb more shortwave radiation – the high-energy rays coming directly from the sun.
Experts have previously shied away from talking about shortwave radiation because clouds can reflect this visible light back to space and clouds remain one of the big unknowns under climate change.”
Read more:

Now the SUN is going to heat us up due to ?????  If I recall correctly, it’s NOT the sun.  Skeptics were ridiculed mercilessly for suggesting it was the sun.  Now global warming advocates have respun the narrative and created a way for the sun to heat us up due to the CO2.  These people should write novels.


(Note:  This is a news article and may not represent the actual science, just the propaganda that the scientists stand silent as the misrepresentaions are dumped on society.  Will update if I find the silent scientists are not actually in agreement with this article.)

Watch the language

I have written on why I use “global warming” and not “climate change”.  I ran across another statement that is frequently made that makes skeptics look, to put it bluntly, stupid.  “They want us all to stop breathing”.  This was concerning the goal of an agency (NAS) saying emissions must be reduced to zero to save the planet from dangerous warming.

This statement does NOT mean they want people to stop breathing.  Breathing takes in CO2 already existing in the air and puts it right back where it came from, plus a small amount of CO2 created by the body.  However, there is no net change in the concentration of the CO2 in the carbon cycle as there is in burning fossil fuels, which are considered sequestered CO2 sources.  The proper response is:

“You mean you want to shut down all of modern society—stop all fossil fuel usage and concrete manufacture.  You want the evil fossil fuel barons who are rich and unfairly so (wait, where did Al Gore get his money?—sorry, I digress) to lose their ill-gotten gains and we will all live in squalor the way God intended.”

Of course, the speaker will then deny the charge, which can then lead to asking how else can this turn out, etc.  Many global warming advocates do not see this as needing to go to zero, but for those who do, the proper discussion is the hellhole people will end up living in if we actually were to follow their advice.


Another story I noted popping up was that Denmark would be “off fossil fuels” by 2020.  This may or may not be true, especially if part of their grid is covered by nations that do burn coal.  To be 100% true, Denmark would have to produce all their on energy, alone, and not tie into the grid.  That won’t happen.  Also, this cannot be applied to any other nation if:

1.  The nation is larger than Denmark.  Scale does matter.

2.  The nation has a different grid setup.  Infrastructure matters.

3.  The nation has an economy based on manufacturing, etc.

Denmark also is not “off fossil fuels” because they buy products from countries that use fossil fuels.  You are lying if you say you don’t use fossil fuels and then buy from someone who does.  It’s a very common lie and one few people ever really seem to catch.  So, Denmark will NOT be off fossil fuels by 2020 unless their grid and their economy is  100% self-contained or any trade is with another 100% renewable country.  You will NOT see this, of that I am certain.  There can also be no diesel generators, no batteries unless manufactured with ONLY renewables……As you can see, the claims are just outright lies.

Correctly put, Denmark may not be using any fossil fuels by 2020 but will continue to reap the benefits of others using them for many, many years thereafter.