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  Cook and Lewandowsky’s studies have been retracted and/or proven to have committed fraud, yet the study now addressed lists these two as authors, along with a few other familiar names (D. Nuccitelli, K.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:

ColdTemps_Aug23

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.”

(http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/aug/06/how-australians-were-ready-to-act-on-climate-science-25-years-ago-and-what-happened-next)

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.
(http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6249/691.full)

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.

(http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/22/opinions/cook-techniques-climate-change-denial/index.html)

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.

img629c

Leapin Lizards Lilly, it’s cold!

All this talk of global warming and now we see this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/07/28/exceptional-cold-front-blankets-montana-wyoming-peaks-with-rare-july-snow/

and this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/29/the-gore-effect-continues-down-under/

On the “hot side”:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/new-york-today-ride-the-heat-wave/?_r=0

Wiki defines a heat wave as:

“A heat wave is a prolonged period of excessively hot weather”

AMS says it’s weather over 90F degrees.  In the Middle East, it’s considerably warmer that much of the time.  So many terms in climate have very, very fluid meanings.  If it’s over 85F and we need a reminder of how dangerous global warming is, then that’s a heat wave.  My question is “why do we care about the heat wave and then ignore the freezing temperatures”?  Because it doesn’t fit the global warming beliefs or because global warming is a hard sell to cold tourists visiting Jackson, Wyoming?  Probably both.  Talk about “cherry picking”.

UPDATE:

Off topic and truly frightening

From a comment section on a news site—”It is said by many scientists that we have already passed the tipping point and in roughly 100-125 years, there will be no humans left on the planet. We aren’t needed, we have nothing offer except harm, death and destruction. The earth doesn’t need us and would clearly be far better off without us. We are the most heinous and most malignant beings to ever happen to our mother.”

The self-louthing here is incredible.  How can anyone espouse a philosophy that says they are hideous parasites that would be better off dead?  I sincerely hope this person did not reproduce.  Think about this—warming belief can lead to self-hatred and despising of the human race.  Why in the world are we trying to save the planet for this?  Who in their right mind follows such a philosophy?  This is on the level of Jim Jones and his cult that killed themselves.  Be afraid.  Your future is being dictated by people who hate you and want you dead.

How to despise your children while pretending to care

The ultimate stupidity and lies of the global warming crowd–they are using CHILDREN for their court cases.
“http://heraldindependent.com/opinion/editorials/497/people-filing-lawsuits-over-global-warming” 

Worse, yet, some idiotic (and that is the only word applicable here–there are no polite terms that describe such behaviour) judge agrees. How stupid and uninformed and weak and spineless are adults now??? What have the environmentalists done to the country? How much do you have to HATE your children to allow this to happen and to participate in it.

The level of hatred and loathing is incredible. There was a time when adults actually cared about future generations, but I now see they care NOTHING WHATSOEVER about their or any other children.  It’s all about power and hatred and emotion.  No rational thought, no concerns beyond getting one’s face in the paper or on TV.  Feeling “good” while doing evil.

What a horrible future these people envision for their children.  Used and disposed of when no longer valuable. I pity the chldren and the empty future these people are using them to create.

Get your patches now—show you don’t understand science for all to see

Thumb1_e3888fb8-f213-4787-bb14-a62a9aa38565_1024x1024

Coming to you from the unscientific, fully political Obama action team.  For a mere $35, you can have these wonderful six patches to sew onto your jacket or whatever (or hire someone to sew it on if you lack that skill).  Let’s see-six for for $35.  That’s $5.80 apiece.  Saving the environment is pricey business, considering a Chinese factory can probably turn these out for a dime apiece.  Maybe a quarter, since China’s stock market’s in trouble.  That leaves $5.56 per patch for your political donation.  I don’t know if they charge sales tax for each locality as should be the case since the Democrats are all about taxes.  I wasn’t interested enough to find out if there were taxes and shipping costs.

I bet the science types could create six patches that show how foolish this whole thing is and sell them for much less.  Probably make them more colorful and appealing, too.  Perhaps I’ll come up with something or one of my readers can.  If what it takes to educate people are colorful patches, it’s time we got into the game, don’t you think?