By Paul Homewood FFP-Global-Temperature-booklet-July-2016-PDF-1 I mentioned earlier the new paper just published by Roy Spencer. It is only 12 pages long, and is well worth reading. I…
A comment made on a blog got me thinking—if raising of global temperatures can cause localized cooling, in reality, it looks precisely like what we have now: weather that is averaged over 30 year intervals and called climate. Unless one looks at the statistical construct called “global average temperature”, there appears to be no difference between hypothetical raising of temperatures and current weather and climate. The weather remains the same—hot sometimes, cold sometimes. Nothing really changes. If we lacked computers and statistics, could we even imagine there was a difference?
Adélie penguins have roamed across Antarctica for millions of years. However, climate change has finally reached a ‘tipping point’ that could decimate their numbers, researchers have warned. Daily Mail
If they have roamed the Antarctic for millions of years, how could humans, in less than 200 years, change the climate enough to destroy them? In those millions of years, the ice NEVER increased or decreased? No way. Since we have no actual records of the events, the scientists can make up whatever they want, but logic says there is no way things stayed static the entire “millions” of years the penquins were there. Nothing says the penquins now are the same as in the past, unless Darwin was wrong and evolution does not really occur. There’s a habit of scientists calling things they want “stable” and anything inconvenient “unstable” with no rationale whatsoever. This entire idea defies logic and reason.
Hansen acknowledged there may be flaws in the weather station data. “But that doesn’t mean you give up on the science, and that you can’t draw valid conclusions about the nature of Earth’s temperature change,” he asserted.
So it’s okay to have bad data and still draw a conclusion? In what alternate reality is that true?
Hikers aren’t permitted around there because towers are DANGEROUS TO PEOPLE, especially if you don’t know what you’re doing. High altitude icing on blades can crush a car once it’s ejected off a blade, let alone a human. High voltage switch gears will fry an individual. And then there’s always the worry of copper strippers, not a few of which have cut locks and torn apart towers, and not a few of which have fried themselves trying to cut energized equipment.
(from what appeared to be a pro-wind commenter on a blog)
This does not sound environmentally friendly to me. Seems wind turbines are dangerous. Multiple use around the turbines is a fantasy, if this comment is correct. One wonders why this is not widely broadcast by the wind industry……Also, the dangers listed to people would also apply to wildlife in the area. Not benign, by any stretch.
From 1984 (the book):
“Winston practices ‘crimestop,’a Newspeak term for the automatic process by which the mind stops any dangerous thought.
“Crimestop refers to the ability to stop short of any thought that might be heretical or unorthodox before it is even thought, as if by instinct. It is the ability to misunderstand analogies, fail to perceive logical errors, and be repelled or bored by any train of thought or conversation that might” run counter to the government consensus.
Crimestop is not stupidity, or at least not natural stupidity. It is the ability to deliberately retard one’s own intelligence, and, of course, to forget the process of doing it by doublethink.
This describes some global warming believers perfectly. They have only one argument, that of argument from authority. It is literally inconceivable to them that anyone would go against consensus. Any interactions with them are designed to humiliate or insult or bully the speaker into joining the consensus. They are truly frightened by those who don’t follow the consensus line.
Drama Delirium Infectus
Global warming activists would make high school drama queens blush. They make the women with the “vapors” look perfectly rational and fine. The level of angst and drama is at an historic high. Even the male of the species has been stricken with the affliction—drama delirium infectus. The illness runs rampant in the global warming community. It is unknown whether the affliction is contagious, but it is certain it can be faked to avoid being labelled a denier or an outcast. No cure is in sight and with the “hockey stick” of infection intensity still rising, no one can predict how widespread the affliction will become.
Another symptom of drama delirium infectus is the inability to understand why claiming warming causes cooling is a problem. Of course, the usual answer is “Climate does not change evenly everywhere”. Really? I though global warming meant the globe got warmer. That’s what the term means. If it in reality means that some places will get hotter, some colder, some drier, etc, then it means the climate will be as it always has been—changing over time. That would mean that global warming is just nature and we should not worry. NO! That can’t be. It’s important that the globe is warming. Using a mathematical average of widely varying inputs, interpolations and extrapolations, corrections and so forth, there is an increase of nearly one degree in the average over 100 years time. What does this mean? It doesn’t mean climate is getting hotter, because some places are colder. Some are drier, some are wetter. Climate as usual. Only one infected with DDI could see things behaving as they always have as a threat to humanity and somehow an insidiously changed environment. It is very sad that these people are incapable of ever experiencing life without fear.
Real Science has a post showing a newspaper from 1934 asking if the Arctic is melting and the Statue of Liberty will be partially submerged, followed by a headline from March 2016 with a similar story.
There’s an even more similar claim here:
It’s just a constant recycling of claims of impending doom. The cartoons of people who stood on the sidewalk with signs saying “The End is Near” are being crowded out by the “scientists” of doom, global warming soothsayers.
For all our technology, we are just as gullible as those who sacrificed virgins to their gods in the hopes of getting rain, bought magic elixirs from traveling salesmen and bought plans for perpetual motion machines. Human beings seem hopelessly mired in wishful thinking and what they wish for the most is their own demise, it seems. And there’s always someone there to sell them the plans.
I have gathered some of the more common responses by followers of the “global warming science”. There’s no evidence of science, of course, but said persons are very persistent. If only they had a clue what global warming is about and could actually articulate it.
You are one foul putrid pile of stench.
You’re a putrid piece of drek. A joke.
Your foul stench keeps growing.
Acquiesce and move on as I need a smarter, more competent, honest and knowledgeable opponent grounded in reality as a minimum and not a delusional gullible and easily duped nescient cretin like you. Now go play charades with other friends.
More lies and tantrums from you.
Your stench keeps growing.
Science requires no belief. if you weren’t a poseur you’d know that. Your comments and science “knowledge” indicate that you’re either a pernicious fool or a perfidious charlatan. Pick one.
More outright lies from you.
More childishly dishonest incoherent gibberish from you.
The last several comments I’ve posted have consisted of clear and unequivocal statements and conclusion of the overwhelming consensus of scientists about global warming including the following from the IPCC:
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that…..
(Note the “educated” warming believer is cutting and pasting from an old version of the IPCC report. He’s seven years behind the data.)
Revel in the anonymity of the internets that affords you delusions of grandeur about your education. You are no chemist, you’re an ignorant poseur.
Your entire non-argument consists of tantrums and insults….and outright lies and stupidity claiming global warming isn’t supported by science.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:
(Note that he says “opinion”, probably by mistake. He’s using IPCC Fourth Assessment here, too. Not sure if he knows there’s a five…)
Repeating your tantrums makes your stench even worse.
Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.
(Arguing we vote for scientific truth and only the scientists whose salaries depend on agreeing with the theory get to vote.)
“This is truly a historic moment,” the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said in an interview. “For the first time, we have a truly universal agreement on climate change, one of the most crucial problems on earth.”
(Arguing that politics are what determine science, again.)
Your comments and science “knowledge” indicate that you’re either a pernicious fool or a perfidious charlatan. Pick one.
(Second time said person used this statement—no originality.)
Your usual incoherent gibberish.
No…the Pope’s statement about global warming has nothing to do with Catholic Church doctrine.
More unhinged incoherent garbage from you.
Get psychiatric help.
Like a jerk with a single digit IQ.
You’re a joke.
(I pointed out that someone with a single digit IQ could not type on the computer, but the “extemely knowledgable” commenter was unfazed.)
You’re like a small child.
You’re not a scientist. You’re a layperson who hasn’t the foggiest idea how science works and are just repeating nihilism in order to justify your own ideological predispositions.
And scientists the world over unanimously agree that AGW is a real threat.
You do realize that climate and weather aren’t the same thing, right?
(However, it is ridiculous to argue this way, since climate is weather averaged over a long period. They are absolutely intertwined. You cannot have climate without weather and weather directly affects climate.)
99% of the comments – on every article – on this website – are totally idiotic.
This isn’t trolling. This is calling it as it is.
My very favorite:
****You’re wrong because it is obvious you have never taken a science class. Scientific theory trumps all laws and scientific facts which are used to develop the theories. It is true science is the best explanation but not necessarily the truth. The truth will never be known. AGW is scientific theory with 100% consensus among all current climate science researchers who publish their findings.
Who knew facts and scientific law were trumped by theory. Then there’s the 100%—ever Cook was content with 97%. The complete ignorance is mind-boggling.
Interesting comments from DeSmog blog on Climate Hustle:
(Climate Hustle premieres tonight in select theaters.)
“I was given the same story by CFACT’s executive director Craig Rucker, who also cited a fire marshal excuse about the theatre’s capacity.” (from the writeup)
Apparently, DeSmog blog has no concern for fire marshal rules?
There is endless complaining about being “shut out”. Really? Shoe’s on the other foot here and there’s wailing and gnashing of teeth? DeSmog can dish it out but not take it? I’m shocked, I say, shocked. Same for any insults flung out by Morano. Somehow global warming believers feel completely justified in calling Morano a “denier” and insulting and threatening him, but when their own behaviour is applied to themselves, one gets a lot of whining and crying like small children.
The “hottest year ever” comes up—news flash: Hottest year ever means nothing. There were many “hottest year evers” and there may be many more. Take any point on the graph where the temperature was hotter than any in the past and you have “hottest year ever”. For example, in this graph:
1940 was the hottest year ever, then temperature went down, then 1980, 1981, etc are all “hottest year ever”. It’s a maximum that can come and go. It means nothing, even if human beings love to think it does. It’s like tallest and shortest, oldest, fastest. Heck they have a whole book on world records, none of which “mean” anything and are broken all the time. There were “coldest year ever” events all along, yet those seem to mean nothing? Why not? Coldest should be as important as hottest if it’s just the record that is important. Looks like somewhere around 1910 was “coldest year ever” yet no catastrophes happened from that. All just word play, nothing more.
There is a clear attempt to convince people this is not an important movie, yet the global warming community does not seem to be able to stop bringing it up and dismissing it as bad. If it really is that bad, why worry about it? Bad movies fade on their own. Maybe it’s not a bad movie????
I note that NO comments were allowed. Interesting—seems DeSmog is just about as open as they complained about Morano being.
5 Ways To Talk With Conservatives About Climate Change
Can’t do that with progressives, talk that is. Many merely scream and yell and call people deniers (see the ending of this piece that is supposed to be conciliatory). These are some suggestions I found on Care2.com for talking to conservatives about global warming, which apparently they think will work,and my responses in red:
1. Climate change is real and it’s happening now. It’s happening all over the world and the poorest people are the ones who are suffering the most. If Conservatives, especially those of the religious persuasion, truly care for their neighbors, climate change should be high on their list of priorities.
First, they are suggesting…..an appeal to religion. Not science, but religion. Plus they suggest claiming climate change is already happening. (Of course it is—it always has. Tell us something we don’t know. Same for not using science in the argument. This is not going to win converts unless the person is easily “guilted” into a certain behaviour. And, again, this is not science. The actual science says the effects are not being felt and most of what is claimed is a desperate, last-ditch effort to preserve the “end-of-the-world” meme in spite of all evidence to the contrary.)
2. There are many causes that Conservatives can support, but caring for the environment envelops three of the key foundational tenants of this movement: trans-generational loyalty, the need for home, and the priority of local economy.
Try bringing in trans-generational loyalty (that term alone will alienate most conservatives since it’s progressive speak), the need for home (how that is supposed to work, I have no idea), and the priority of local economy (also a losing idea—local is good only in specific cases, not one-size-fits-all). Not a convincing argument.
3. Even though most Conservatives believe in God as the omnipotent designer of the Earth, it is important to note that as humans, we have the power to make our own choices. Believing in climate change isn’t an insult to God, it’s an acknowledgment of responsibility!
Believing in global warming is not an insult to God? Seriously, we just elevated ourselves to God’s level by saying we control the climate. A quick study of religion may be in order before anything in this area is tried again.
4. By replacing our energy sources with clean energy, we can reduce the human impact of climate change and therefore reduce the burden on the environment. Being good stewards of the Earth is a motto taught in Sunday School, and it doesn’t end when you walk out the doors of the church.
Now we get replacing our energy with clean energy as a suggestion. IF we had any, we would. The bird killing, bat-chomping environmental disasters called wind turbines and solar panels are NOT clean by anyone’s estimation, except in the minds of uninformed climate change believers. Land is destroyed, radioactivity is dumped in valleys in China, mines and chemicals are involved. Massive fossil fuel usage in transportation, installation, and then energy only when the sun shines or the wind blows. Thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines (the very ones environmentalist opposed in the 70’s). That is NOT a clean energy source.
5. And finally, teach your friends and family about conserving the environment. Start small with your children, capitalizing on their curiosity about the world around them. Moms Clean Air Force provides all the important resources to help you arm yourself with the facts and teach your family to stand up to skeptics and climate change deniers!
The piece suggests “Moms Clean Air Force” page. (I’ve written on the completely unscientific nature of Moms—this will not help the case for global warming believers trying to appeal to a rational listener. https://whynotwind.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/moms-clean-air-force-clueless-and-dangerous/)
Note, too, that they insult the very people they are trying to convince by calling them “deniers”, when there is NO science in what these individuals are writing. Perhaps if they actually looked at the science and could actually understand it, they would realize they are the ones going against science.
All in all, the suggestions are emotional appeals to try and get people to mindlessly agree with the global warming camp. Public flogging of those who dare to disagree might be more effective and would certainly be more honest. It’s all emotional blackmail, devoid of science. Is anyone surprised?