I was surfing the net and discovered Bill Nye is now the go to guy for an expert on climate change. Really, a comedian and children’s entertainer is the new expert on global warming? How absolutely naive are the global warming advocates hoping the people of the US are? Next, we’ll have Daffy Duck  testifying as to the ills of global warming. Why do we never get Michael Mann or any real “expert” debating a skeptic? The best the global warming people have is a fake science guy? You know they’ve lost the debate and are desperately trying to just snow the public (pun intended for those of you on the East Coast of the US) about global warming.
There was an interesting exchange between a reporter and Obama’s press secretary where the reporter was trying to narrow down Obama on climate change being more of a threat than terrorism. The reporter seemed very unsure how the president of the US could actually think global warming was more dangerous than terrorists. No wonder people have become very skeptical of the entire global warming idea. How can anyone believe model-predicted weather can be more dangerous than terrorists bombing, beheading and burning people alive? This would have been called “insanity” in a more reasoned time. It still should be. The man who is supposed to protect the USA is telling us computer models are more of a threat than a real, live, murderous terrorist. How can anyone take any of this seriously? Bill Nye made the same insane statement. Hint–global warming people, if you want to convince people that global warming is real, put a piece of duct tape over Obama’s mouth and Bill Nye’s too. Your credibility might actually increase. With spokesmen like Obama and Bill Nye, you really don’t need skeptics. You’re destroying yourselves.

(http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/wh-spokesman-climate-change-affects-more-people-daily-terrorism
This is not the only source for readers who are inclined to dismiss “right wing” sources. There are audio versions out there with the same content.)
The New Expert on Global Warming

Meet “Quacky”, the new global warming expert

Couldn’t pick just one

You know how some blogs have things like “Climate Crock of the Week or Month”? How do they pick just one?

“I think that these extreme weather events which are now a hundred times more common than 30 years ago are really waking people’s awareness all over the world [on climate change], and I think that is a gamechanger.”
says the man who flew into Davos on a private jet and whose conference is using more fossil fuel than a small country–people hit by hurricanes should start egging Al Gore and trying to take his millions since he created the “hundred times” more extreme weather events. Time to go after the big polluters–climate change conferences. Maybe we can bus in poor victims of these people’s extravagant lifestyles and let them know just how much leaders “care” about climate change and the poor.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/24/climate-change-al-gore-davos-haiyan-sandy?CMP=share_btn_tw

We Must Act Now to Protect Our Winters
Apparently Gina McCarthy has absolutely no idea what is happening in her own country. How can anyone, with a straight face, make such an idiotic statement? The complete and utter ignorance is astounding. Something like 80% of the US is below average for temperature and the east coast has been shut down with blizzard after blizzard. She is saying we need more snow, more economic damage, more whatever. One also has to wonder how she thinks these ski resorts are going to operate without fossil fuels–burros pulling people uphill instead of lifts? And the moronic athletes that just dive right in and buy the garbage. How incredibly stupid have Americans become? Wait, don’t answer that.

http://blog.epa.gov/epaconnect/2015/01/we-must-act-now/

“In a major shift, Obama administration will plan for rising seas in all federal projects” headline in Washington Post.
Really, I thought you folks believed Obama walked on water and could part the seas.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/30/in-major-shift-obama-administration-will-plan-for-rising-seas-in-all-federal-projects/?postshare=3941422707030463

Can the Media Please Stop Quoting Bill Nye as a Science Expert

Proof once again that climate science is definitely not presented by experts. You only need the right attitude and belief, and a fake title like “science guy” and you too can be an expert on climate change. I guess all that stuff about complicated math and physics was just made up……

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgreenfield/can-the-media-please-stop-quoting-bill-nye-as-a-science-expert/

My plan for a more tailored look for this blog (educational and fun facts about global warming, etc) continues to be interrupted.  Tis the season for ridiculous statements and a propaganda push that would shame some past dictators.  Remember when science was about reason and data and not a political movement in and of itself?  Those were the days.

Random thoughts

Various things that have come up today:
The “historic” blizzard on the east coast. As was noted by one speaker, how can you call historic before it even happens?

Second, how historic is it? Turns out not so much:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/html/hazards/winter_history.shtml

New York and the east coast get hit frequently. The nastier blizzards were back in the late 1800s, when there were less people to be affected. Perhaps back then the people simply called this weather and dealt with it.
I have no objection to the mayors and so forth shutting the cities down. Who wants millions of people who can’t drive on ice and in snow out in the way of emergency vehicles and snow plows? Seems very reasonable to me. I don’t see it as overreacting.
As for winds, Wyoming’s town of Clark has had 100+ mph winds twice this year. It’s not the intensity of the weather, it’s the planning for it that determines the level of damage. (Yes, the town had some damage. It was cleaned up and life went on.)
I have a hard time calling less than 12 inches of snow anything more than an average snowfall. Takes 24 inches or more to be heavy. If you add a lot of wind, then 6 inches can be a problem, but it’s not the snow, rather the combination. It bothers me that people have become so incapable of dealing with weather. It’s not climate change, it’s people change.

Next: “I don’t want to be here when all the ice is gone and winters are a thing of the past.” This comment was on Rachel Squirrel, happiness engineer’s blog. First what is a happiness engineer? Second, why is a happiness engineer writing on what she appears to consider a coming apocalypse? I cannot see how that increases anyone’s happiness, but maybe some people are happy being the bearers of apocalyptic news? I really don’t want her engineering my happiness.

Third, and this also came up on another blog: There are many hottest years in a row now. Yes, but looking at the GISS NOAA graph showing 2014 as maybe the hottest year, I find that there were 57 consecutive years below average between 1880 and 1937. Later, after 1970, there were 38 consecutive above average years. Why were 57 cold years not apocalyptic or apparently not bad in any way, yet 38 hot ones are? I have no answer.
Now, I will note, before someone sends a rude comment, that the average temperature used for the graph of anomalies was the 20th century average (57F). This obviously did not exist when the 58 cold years were occurring, nor did it exist for most of the hot ones (14 of them occurred after the 20th century). My point is that the 57 years in a row lead to no horrible outcomes. What is the justification for believing 38 hot ones will?
Also, there was a run of cold years between 1900 and 1915 where 4 out of eight consecutive years were the coldest on record. That would be 50%. Now, 4 out of 17 years have been the hottest. That would be 25%. While I’d like to claim this means something, statistics are really simple to create and get them to show whatever you want. I am, however, using an official graph, the entire graph (no cherry picking) and coming up with these questions. If one period shows danger (hot years) and the other did not (cold years), when the original cold was much longer and had a higher percentage of record cold years in a limited time, we seriously need to consider whether the current statistics and “trends, hottest, etc” mean anything.

Scientific Badger

Scientific Badger

The New Year

It’s a new year and I thought I’d try to be a bit more organized and look at climate and global warming from several different angles. This may or may not continue depending on my success in creating ideas for posts.

Most scientifically and mathematically illiterate headline I have found to date:

“We may never have another coldest year in history”
(From Salon, Nov 29, 2014)

It is impossible not to have a coldest year. Coldest is a superlative–it is the lowest temperature recorded. It matters not if it’s -20F or 75F. If it’s the coldest (IE lowest) number, it is by definition the coldest. Mathematically, again, the lowest temperature is coldest and the highest is hottest. You see hottest used all the time to describe the temperature in Antarctica. It is the hottest or warmest year ever there. It seems the media understands hottest just fine. Why they can’t grasp coldest is beyond me, but headlines like this one should immediately alert people to the fact that this writer is completely clueless. You’re not going to find anything resembling science written by him/her, except by accident.

I ran into the argument from a skeptic that if you don’t use your “real” name, it’s okay to ignore you. The logic seems to be that if you don’t care enough to sign your name, why should a reader care what you wrote? Interesting. I thought skepticism was science, not authorities, who is and isn’t using their real name, etc. I fail to see why it’s okay for a skeptic to dismiss information because it was written by an anonymous person but it’s wrong for a global warming advocate to dismiss evidence not written by a professional climate scientist in a peer-reviewed journal. The rule of science says the evidence count. Shutting out evidence for whatever reason is extremely unscientific on either side.

Claims of the “hottest year ever” are out once again. We return to the land versus satellite dilemma. In most sciences, more data points from a more uniform distribution are considered better than fewer. That does not seem to be the case with global warming. Global warming reports that form the basis of news headlines are based on land temperatures, which reportedly show warming. So why not use satellite? The only reason I can find is that land gives the answer some individuals and institutions seem to want.

While I was working on this, Gavin Schmidt admitted to the Daily Mail that 2014 may NOT have been the hottest. It was impossible to decide between three years that were statistically the same. The headline read: “Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record… but we’re only 38% sure we were right” So there is higher than 50-50 chance 2014 was not the warmest year, yet NASA told the media it was the hottest year. Lying does little to make people more believing of the global warming scientists.

(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3PHwACZiL)

Another dilemma in the global warming saga–is there a pause or not? At first, a pause was denied. Then all kinds of reasons for the pause were advanced. Currently, it’s a toss up on whether the global warming advocates will agree there is a pause or loudly proclaim there is not. Which means “follow the experts” is useless in this case. I am now referring to this as a “leveling” or a “flattening” of temperatures, which gives no clue as to whether the temperatures will stay the same, go up or go down. That reflects the truth of what we know now.

There are cries from many of the global warming camps that “something must be done” before it’s too late. If reports of “Hottest Year Ever” contradict each other and there’s no agreement on whether or not the temperature increase has flattened or stopped, there is no way, scientifically speaking, for us to know what to do. The answers we are hearing now are pure politics.

Scientific badger

Scientific badger

2015 Challenge

For the opening of 2015, I am challenging people to name one thing in their life that has no connection to fossil fuels, either directly or indirectly. Whether or not you personally used the fossil fuels does not matter. If any fossil fuels were involved at any point, the item does not count. Go for it.

Happy New Year

Happy New Year to everyone. I will return in a day or two to regular posting, unless overwhelmed by global warming or other such things. It seems global warming is pretty much the end-all excuse for everything now. The Malaysian airline that had its plane crash into the ocean blamed climate change. In all fairness, I am not surprised a business would try and blame something for its problems—it’s just very counter productive and really sounds clueless.

One should worry more that people now blame everything on climate change than they should worry about global warming itself. Bad science and using science to circumvent personal responsibility will take humans down much, much faster than CO2. So for 2015, we should concentrate on improving people’s understanding of science and accepting that the climate will take care of itself.

Scientific badger

Scientific badger

Free for All

In the holiday spirit (which I totally lack, but I’m pretending here!), I am allowing all comments to go through on this thread without rules or moderation (except no profanity). If you are bothered by trolls, rude behaviour, ad hominem attacks, etc, you may want to skip this one. Assuming anyone out there is still hoping to hop on the blog and let me have it.

So, Happy Holidays.

(Note: This is the only thread this is allowed on. I will immediately delete comments on other threads when they are inappropriate, just as always.)