What to do when good religion goes bad

This is not a science post, but rather address the unholy alliance of the Pope and global warming believers*

Should Catholics support their church with the Pope spewing lies about climate change? Morally, that would be monetarily supporting evil. So no, you should not be donating to a church that is spreading lies and misinformation. If the Pope wants to redistribute money forcibly, which is what global warming advocates are demanding, there is no reason to support this action, unless you believe God wants money taken from those who work and produce and given to those who have not yet succeeded. I know of no Biblical statement to that effect. It was said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s, but if the church joins forces with Caesar (which now the case), there is no admonition about double-dipping for funds. Until the church separates itself from Caesar, no more donations should be made. God is not the government and the government should not be elevated to Godhood. That is morally wrong, no matter who tries to convince you of it.

Assuming one wishes to believe the Pope on global warming, the remainder of the encyclical teaches abortion is wrong, restricts contraception, and denounces homosexuality. So, to avoid “cherry picking”, global warming followers are expected to believe all parts of their hero’s encyclical.  To do otherwise would be wrong and hypocritical. That or lay off the claims of fossil fuel conspiracies, belief in pseudoscience, etc as reasons to dismiss skeptics.  If belief in “conspiracies” and pseudoscience are grounds to doubt skeptics, then alliance with religion should be grounds to doubt global warming believers.
On the flip side, if we return to extreme poverty, living in villages and hunting food, that in and of itself is a form of population control. Women had many children but only a few survived to adulthood. This may be a way of limiting population by government decree without ever revealing the actual intention. One could then say that no contraception was used and that God’s will was the child not grow up. It’s an odd argument, but it could actually yield a solution that satisfies both the Pope and the environmentalists.  A win-win for politics, not so much for religion and a complete loss for science.

*I am using global warming believers since AP is now calling skeptics “doubters”.  Believers are the opposite of doubters.

More news from the field

DeSmog blog (no link–I don’t want to help their traffic numbers) has an article on wastewater from oilfields. Seems the beloved government regulators are not doing enough to protect us from toxins. So, in line with the totally irrational, but expected thinking of the enviros, I propose no water that ever fell through polluted air, was ever used for waste disposal, ever used to wash a car, ever used to bathe a child be declared OFF LIMITS. Only pure water can be consumed by humans and used to grow food. The rain falling from the sky is poison, so we shall have to use ground water to grow vegetables, unless there are any molecules of contamination found in the water. No contamination is natural. Anything chemical means no using the water for drinking or growing food. We cannot take any chances whatsoever. There is no safe limit for anything. We are all going to DIE. Yes, we are. If we actually keep printing, reporting and subscribing to the insanity of these people. Want to kill millions? Just start following the insane edicts of the “Save the Earth” crowd. (Hint: You are not on their list to survive. They are not saving you.)

CNSnews.com reports a Maryland carpenter is building an altar for the Pope’s visit that is eco-friendly with an eye on climate change (This is probably better than the transgender and openly gay Episcopal bishop Obama is bringing, I would note.  Rudeness and stupidity run all the way to the top in America.  Obama will be remembered as the rudest, stupiest president ever.  Jimmy Carter looks good in comparison to Obama). It’s made of poplar wood. This somehow qualifies as not exploiting the environment or native workers. Since ironwork is necessary for the tools to build this, even if it’s all hand tools, I see environmental exploitation. I’m assuming the trees died a natural death and were used for that reason. Exploiting native workers would probably mean that no individuals in dire need of income were used in the making of the project because they would be underpaid. No money is better than being insulted with a pittance salary. This project is in agreement with the Pope and his policies–completely contradictory and emotional. No science, no real thought. Congratulations.

Great news for global warming believers–a NEW statistical method now shows the pause never happened. It’s interesting that the old ones all showed it did. If everyone was wrong before, how can we know they are right now? How many other new methods have been invented and then discarded because the answer was not in line with the stated goal of “fixing” that nasty pause? We’ll never know, will we? What you can conclude from this is global warming science has no idea what it is doing other than forcing data to fit a theory. That is NOT science. Once again, an admission to the clueless nature of the beast. (I notice in the Washington Post, the trend line conveniently now begins at 1950. Would that “new” method involve moving the endpoints on the regression line? That’s not new. That’s how you make the data say what you want it to. It’s a known advantage to regression lines in a time series. You can pick start and end points and get whatever answer you want.)  It is interesting how many new studies and statistical methods have been INVENTED to study and fix the pause.  If that doesn’t prove definitively that the data is being manipulated to confirm the theory and reality ignored in favor of saving the theory, nothing does.  This is all about doing whatever it takes to keep the lie going—and it’s obviously a lie or there would not be such heroic measures being taken and such lengths gone to in order to fabricate repairs to a destroyed theory.

Lew is apparently at it again with a “blind expert study” where the climate data is presented as world agricultural output data and experts are asked if there is a trend. Fascinating. I wonder if we could use that same technique to say, ask experts if the grant money going to the global warming crew is outrageously high. We could tell them it’s money to corporate CEOs as compensation for a job well done. That wouldn’t have an emotional component to an economist, would it? Perhaps we could take oil company earnings and couch them as charitable donations and see if anyone thinks the amounts are out of line. It is, quite frankly, insane to believe statistics can be separated from their input data and assumptions. Statistics always depend on the input parameters and the accuracy of underlying assumptions. That a Global Average Temperature exists and has meaning is a HUGE underlying assumption that you cannot wish away by lying to experts and telling them it’s world agricultural output. It’s completely dishonest and deliberate deception. Yet this is how global warming scientists work–break all the rules to get the answer desired.  Lewendosky is a disgrace to the profession.


Just a few new thoughts

In reading through various blogs and sites this morning:
Headline: Poor nations want US to pay reparations for extreme weather (USA Today)
There you have it. Full circle to humans being the medicine men who control weather. Centuries of progress have brought us back to where we now encourage primitive societies to belief in parapsychology in order to justify demands that “richer” nations (read as “the gullible USA with trillions of dollars in debt) give up the money and hard work they have done and dole out money to nations that have not done as well. What it really comes down to is “a handout is so much easier than actually succeeding”. If there’s any doubt, you are referred to the many parasitic species in nature. (Remember, after the parasite kills the host, the parasite dies. This seems to have been forgotten.)

Speaking of parasites, global warming activists are now trying to sue in court to get their ideas in place. Having failed in virtually all other arenas, the great American past-time of suing people has entered the environmentalists tactics now. This would be proof positive that science is not involved in any way in global warming theory. Courts have virtually no science involved except by accident. See OJ Simpson trial if you have doubts. Plus the thousands of personal injury lawyers suing for every drug reaction out there, real or imagined, warned or nt, plus every stupid act of a human being blamed on someone else that has money the lawyer can get (this is not about the “victim” of the drug or the person who committed the act of stupidity). What this latest development really says is “NO SCIENCE HERE”. Move along.

Following the example of global warming scientists, I ran across this question in Retraction Watch (http://retractionwatch.com/2015/08/27/yes-many-psychology-findings-may-be-too-good-to-be-true-now-what/)
“A criticism we’ve heard of replication efforts is that it’s very difficult for a new group of people to gain the skills and tools to do the same study as well as the original authors, so a perfectly valid result may still fail to be replicated. Do you think this study addresses this criticism in any way?

The Open Science Collaborators have installed several checks and balances to tackle this problem. Studies to be replicated were matched with the replicator teams on the basis not only of interests and resources, but also of the teams’ expertise. The open data files clearly indicate the expertise of each replicator team, and the claim that a group of over 250 psychologists lacks expertise in doing these kinds of experiments is a bit of a stretch. Certainly there may be debates about certain specifics of the studies, and I expect the original researchers to point at methodological and theoretical explanations for the supposed discrepancy between the original finding and the replication (Several of the original researchers responded to the final replication report, as can be seen on the project’s OSF page). Such explanations are often ad hoc and typically ignore the role of chance (given the smallness of effects and samples sizes used in most original studies finding a significant result in one study and a non-significant result in another study may well be completely accidental), but they are to be taken seriously and perhaps studied further.
One should always report one’s methods and results in a manner that allows for independent replication; we now have many safe online locations to put supplementary information, materials, and data, and so I hope this project highlights the importance of reporting studies in a much more replicable and reproducible manner.”

Note the attempt to say the replicators are just not smart enough or skilled enough to repeat the experiment.  No, that does not fly here any more than in global warming.  If you cannot present the results of your experiment, whether it be a real data one, computer modeling or survey (the last two are really not experiments, but they are called that often), then you have not produced useful results.  If we must rely on the experimenter’s awesomeness and brilliance for verification, sorry, not science.

Scientific badger

Scientific badger

Stop! Don’t let that horse through the gate!

Climate Progress had an article still quoting the 97% consensus in spite of repeated refutations and evidence of fraud in the studies.  This is interesting considering the rest of the article seems to try to play away from the consensus idea.  Perhaps they’re just confused?  Cook and Lewandowsky’s studies have been retracted and/or proven to have committed fraud, yet the study now addressed lists these two as authors, along with a few other familiar names (D. Nuccitelli, K. Hayhoe), all part of the Global Warming intimidation and bullying squad.  Later, you’ll see why this is extremely ironic.

For the study, it seems they used outliers from the skeptic side because it was easier.  This according to Climate Progress.  Interesting, using the outliers?  I guess then if skeptics are going to check out global warming scientists and their statements, boiling oceans and complete arctic ice melting would be the ideas to go with.  I’m not sure i can find a peer-reviewed paper to that effect, though it seems after reading this paper, the real scientists here are the authors of the paper and they are way smarter than any peer-review board.  How many years have global warming advocates screamed “peer-review” and now that peer-review has been shown to be problematic, they now create their own review group who is smarter and better than any magazine editor (Reminds me of Sheldon on the “Big Bang”—”My brain is better than everybody’s”).

The stated goal was “replication with a critical eye”.  Replication is NOT done with a critical eye.  It’s taking the exact same data, statistics and repeating what the researcher did to see if you get the same result.  What is describe in the paper is “peer-review by a panel of self-annointed experts”.  Replication apprear to have had a tiny part in the paper, if it was actually addressed at all.

We show how knowledge may progress through replication of 38 papers and how ignorance may be reduced for some controversies. In addition to the replication itself, the assessment of the papers should also involve an analysis of the logical reasoning. Wrong conclusions may result from incorrect logic for several reasons, here categorised from A-D: A. One may start from a correct logical premise and execute an erroneous analysis. B. One may apply a correct analysis but start from the wrong logical premise. C. One may start from the right premise, and correctly apply the analysis, but overstate the significance of the conclusions (the analysis does not actually address the question). D. One may start from wrong logical premise and apply erroneous analysis.

Again, NOT replication, but instead self-annointed peer-review.

Climate Progress says things did not go well for the contrarian papers.  Really???  Outlier theories were chosen and somehow failed the self-annointed peer-review?  If skeptics did this, it would be called CHERRY PICKING.

sign   Here’s your sign.

Funny, the article then actually accuse the skeptics of cherry picking.  I am beginning to wonder if there is any intelligence on the global warming side.  They cherry pick and then accuse skeptics of doing it.  Worse, they say it’s wrong when skeptics do this, but a-okay when global warming cherry picks.  Can’t we just bake pies with the cherries and actually address the data that was omitted and why it should or should not have been.  On ALL sides of the issue.  Because we clearly see from this paper that cherry-picking is a favorite of the global warming crowd.

sign  Here’s your sign.

The article mentions a 4000 year cycle that was the only period that the statistical analysis worked for.  I didn’t find any looks at global warming studies to see if these were also suffering from that same defect.  It was noted that global warming studies “may” be suffering from the same problems.  Seriously, shouldn’t that have been included in the paper?  IF the goal was to make science better, I’d think you’d want to give examples on both sides.  IF.

sign  Here’s your sign.

There were studies that reportedly ignored the laws of physics and some researchers included extra parameters not based on the laws of physics. The actual paper covers some of the reasons why these analyses were incorrect.  None was particularly convincing.  Keep in mind also that the outliers were chosen because these are easier to refute, so I was surprised there wasn’t more convincing refutation.  (I do have questions on some of the papers listed.  I also have questions on a large number of global warming papers.)  Again, if you cherry-pick your authors, I’m certain one can find examples of improper physics and statistics.  We already know that from global warming science.

Statistical abuse/misuse and wrong premises and conclusions seemed to be based on what is “known” in global warming. In other words, the paper failed if it disagreed with any part of the global warming meme.  One wonders how global warming statistics and premises are apparently self-evident (which makes me wonder why they bothered to do the study at all—No, I know exactly why they did the study—propaganda.  The mainstay of global warming so-called science.)

sign  Here’s your sign.

The article concludes that “reproducibility” is essential in science, irregardless of consensus (First, the authors need to learn what “reproducibility” is).  Again, this from two or three authors known to attempt to pummel people into going along with science NO MATTER WHAT.  They have called people “deniers”(but switched to “contrarian” because that so much nicer, right?), and done everything in their power to silence ALL opposition.  Forgive me if remain skeptical about motives and sincerity here.  A self-annointed peer-review panel trying to convince us they are open-minded, sincere and scientific.

Bar the gate.  That gift from the global warming advocates is a Trojan horse.

New record low for Casper, Wyoming

It’s the end of August and my garden suffered frost damage last night:

DSCN3943 DSCN3940 DSCN3938 DSCN3937

This is from the National Weather Service:


They report this is the earliest freeze in Casper.  Temperatures have not reached 100 degrees this summer and now the earliest frost on record.  There’s no warming in Wyoming, it seems.  Yes, this is local, but I read over and over again of new low records, snowfall, etc worldwide.  I can either believe what I read from many different sources on how cold the world is becoming, or listen to the “experts” tell me it’s warming.  Sorry, experts, I’m going with what I see and read.  It’s not warming.  It’s just not.

Translating AGW claims

This post is to explain in clear language what the AGW crowd is saying.  I will start with one very common example and add more over time.

What it really means:

Today, at the Guardian, we find a book on how the science of global warming was hijacked by corporate minions. The actual translation of this is “Global warming science is very unpersuasive and cannot actually defend itself against those who point out severe flaws in the data and methodology. However, since the politicians and scientists cannot admit this, blame will be shifted to corporations, who, by the way, are apparently far smarter and more persuasive than the global warming advocates. Even the spokespeople for global warming were so poor at conveying the need for action that they failed monumentally.”


August 9, 2015 from a comment on a skeptic blog:

“go look it up or make the point you want to make so I can respond to that”  (After being asked by a commenter if the person knew about plate techtonics over the past 20,000 years)

This often used by true believers in AGW who don’t understand the science but don’t want to look foolish.  When asked a question they cannot answer, they simply bluster up like a rooster and try to intimidate.  What they are really saying is:

“I have no idea what you’re talking about and I can’t look up the proper answer in the warmist manual without further information.  I, left to my own devices, would never be able to answer your question.”

August 19 2015 from a Kevin Trenbreth paper:

“The increasing gap between model expectations and observed temperatures provides further grounds for concluding that there has been a hiatus.”

Translation:  Our models are reality and the fact that the actual temperatures are not doing what our models say will happen does not mean our models are wrong.  It’s the temperatures in the real world that are the problem.  Our models know the future and the future will be HOT.

So there you have it.  Global warming is a sure thing because the models say it is and it does not matter what the actual real world is doing.  The real world temperatures will fall in line with those models.  Some day.  Some day in the future.  Some day in the future but we’re not sure when.  But it will happen.

August 31, 2015 from a comment in the online version of the Albany Herald:

“Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.”

Translation: I am a warmist and a true conspiracy believer. I see conspiracies anywhere and everywhere there is a challenge to my thinking. It’s interesting to note that this comment was in response to a parody of global warming–meaning the commenter was not even bright enough to realize he is for parodies of things he disagrees with but no one can parody anything said person believes in.  Global warming is godlike and cannot be mocked.

The website wottsupwiththat.com is quite depressing, though that is not unusual among such parody websites run by warmists.  Most are reminiscent of a toddler coloring on a wall with a crayon.  His comment policy is “If your comment is not concise, rational and relevant or is redundant or repetitious it will not appear.”  This from a guy who uses only a first name and is criticizing Watts for misinformation and being boring?  Again, you have to realize that the website is not going to allow any discussion or disagreement.  Discussion and disagreement are boring, you know.  And probably a threat to one’s faith in global warming.  Truly sad to be so seeped in the faith, especially since that is completely and utterly unscientific.


Scientific badger

Scientific badger

John Cook returns with his usual unscientific propaganda

Since this blog watches those who watch the deniers, a post on the infamous suspected identity thief John Cook’s July 22 cnn.com piece “The 5 telltale techniques of Climate Deniers” seems in order.


His first claimed technique: Fake experts

This coming from a person who apparently photoshopped himself in a Nazi uniform then later posted comments under another’s name on the not-so-secret Skeptical Science forum. Comments attributed to Cook show he posted as Lobos Motl, a physicist who is skeptical of many of the claims of AGW. The idea that John could actually use the word “fake” seriously in a sentence says it all.

“Fake experts” means anyone who disagrees with any part of AGW, including the solutions proposed. So, besides parroting the proper attitude and allegiance, what makes someone an expert? It can’t be your degree–many acceptable and not acceptable experts have the same degrees. It’s not working in the field of climate science as there are several well-known persons who are working in the field who disagree with much of is claimed by climate science. It is belief in the entire AGW meme that makes you an expert. Not the science, not the degree. Just belief and agreement.

What makes climate science so special that only a few designated persons who all agree 100% on the meaning of climate change are the only experts? Answer: Nothing. It’s a smoke screen to silence any legitimate opposition (actually ALL opposition). What makes climate science special is it’s about agreement, not science and not about truth.

His second claimed technique:

Logical fallacies are used by climate deniers. He uses the fallacy of “jumping to conclusions” as an example. Climate change was natural in the past so it is now.

John’s analogy–you find someone dead with a knife in their back. You conclude they died of natural causes because people have done so in the past. I’m starting to see why John was a cartoonist. Rational thought is not required.  I know of no one who would jump to such a conclusion.  When someone says the climate has always changed, they are stating a fact.  The most egregious error in John’s claimed improper technique is that scientifically speaking, the person making the claim of “unnatural” has to prove their claim. The knife in the back is relatively solid proof of an unnatural death, unless someone just stabbed a knife into a dead person. Of course, if John knows the AGW scientists cannot prove that current warming or lack thereof is not natural, the smoke and mirrors game here does make sense.

His third claimed technique:

Impossible expectations. Like models that accurately predict? Really? Out of 102 models averaged, it seems none accurately predicted the leveling of temperatures over the past 18 years. None.

John, I have a great deal on a used car for you. About half the time it starts, sometimes it keeps running and sometimes not, it leaks anywhere from 1/2 to 3 quarts of oil, the wipers are random, tires hold air for a while and one or two doors open from the outside. Should work well if you don’t have impossible expectations of the car.

His fourth claimed technique:

Cherry picking. What’s this with the fruit fetish anyway?

Every single scientist on the planet picks and chooses the data he/she uses. If the data supports their theory/hypothesis with one selection but not another, the additional nonconforming data must be included. That’s not what climate scientists do, however. Often the values chosen seem to be chosen merely because they fit the theory. Then there is the constant adjusting of temperatures that goes on. While some adjustments may be needed, continual adjustment seems to point to making the data fit the theory.

Interestingly enough, John seems to be admitting there has been a leveling of off of temperatures in this statement: “For example, a persistent myth is that global warming stopped in recent decades. This is done by focusing on one slice of our climate system — the surface temperature record. Further, it relies on cherry-picking short time periods. This ignores the long-term trend and more importantly, ignores the many warming indicators telling us that our planet continues to build up heat.” There’s really no indication of what those many warming factors are nor why we should pay attention to something besides atmospheric temperatures. The global average temperature is the gold standard of climate change theory, yet suddenly we are to ignore it and move on?  Maybe.  After all, it didn’t cooperate and keep increasing.  Reality can be such a pain.

Climate scientists often do not start in the late 1800’s and run the entire record when demonstrating warming, so the claim of cherry-picking would apply to climate scientists as well.  Any elimination of any data can be claimed to be cherry-picking by someone, accurately or not.

John claims species are migrating to warmer climates yet there is scant if any evidence that this is occurring at a more rapid pace than in the past. Perhaps eyeballing some things are fine for climate science. Using actual data might result in fruit picking. He also mentions Greenland and Antarctica losing ice, but no mention of the Arctic. Do I smell pie baking?

His fifth technique:

Conspiracy theory beliefs. John complains skeptics claim there is a conspiracy of scientists and politicians to push AGW. (Coming from a person with virtually zero science knowledge and no advanced degrees who suddenly works for a university doing research studies, that might not be a really good idea.)

I’m following John’s lead here and going with an informal fallacy I am calling “the fallacy of self-delusion”. Global warming advocates constantly claim oil and gas are in a conspiracy to silence the AGW scientists. They are so incredibly self-deluded they do not see their own major conspiratorial claims. The good new is John’s fifth technique puts climate change advocates squarely in the science denier camp. Confirmation that climate change advocates are indeed science deniers.