IPCC political propaganda report released

Seems WtD is dancing a jig after the release of the media portion of the IPCC report–you know, the part that tows the line with the need for massive government intervention in everyone’s life, that we’re all going to die if we do nothing, etc.

Funny, no mention of 17 years of flat temperatures and a complete failure on the part of modeling Arctic ice, no increase in tornadoes, no increase in floods, “extreme weather” failing to arrive, sea level rising by cm, not meters.  No mention of the scrambling to cover their behinds when they could not explain the flattened temperatures.  Perhaps most important, no explanation of how they can be 95% certain humans are causing the non-existent warming when their models are so far out of bounds.  I know–show of hands.  They voted and decided 95% sounded good.  Actually, I think they should have gone with 97%, their favorite number.

Don’t get lulled into thinking this is anything more than politics.   This is nothing but repeating of already failed predictions.   The continual threat that at some date when all of these people are dead, bad things will happen.  If you say it long enough, they will believe?  That’s what politicians do.  Repeat failed predictions and try to instill fear.  Scientists go back to the lab and rework the theory.

Note:  While WtD seems convinced models are reality.  Unless your life consists of zeros and ones with no corporeal existence, models are not reality.  Reality says the upward trend is no longer upward.   All the models in the world won’t change that.  The models have proven to be wrong.

Scientific Badger

Scientific Badger

Advertisements

What about T. Boone Pickens?

I accidentally stumbled on to the WtD site and noted an article on how Murdoch was losing a fortune on his publishing business.  The blogger, of course, asks if it might be because Murdoch is an evil science heretic who does not tow the line with the “consensus” on climate change.  I did note that said blogger does not seem to have mentioned that Pickens lost millions in the wind industry.  It seems it’s news to be shouted out to the masses if people you disagree with lose money, but let’s not let out any information on the $150 million Pickens lost to the green-endorsed wind industry.  If losing money is a sign that the public is not with you, the public is seriously not with wind.

Michael Mann: Climate-Change Deniers Must Stop Distorting the Evidence (Op-Ed)  Why–is it competing with his distorting evidence?

 

Scientific badger

Scientific badger

Climate change claims

  1. Worst year ever for ____________ (insert fires, flood, locust plague, whatever)I keep wondering how long the little boy can cry “wolf”.  Judging by the ZERO participants in a DC climate rally this summer, the cry is losing its effect. Sea levels rise centimeters, not meters, American heat waves declining—all problematic. Chants of “It will come” just make the speakers look foolish—like a psychic trying to overcome failed predictions.
  2. Climate change is a threat to national securityThis is one of the stupidest statements to date. The only threat to national security is the idiot making the statement. Next, gravity will be a threat to national security, then darkness, then sunshine. Incredibly stupid is the only term I can find for this.
  3. Climate change makes apples less crisp (colossal waste of money on that study), drives women into prostitution, makes politicians dumber (okay, I made that one up—and it could be true), increases crime, will necessitate mass migrations inland and vastly increases Facebook and Twitter traffic. It’s like God—omnipresent and responsible for everything.
  4. Anyone who questions AGW is a “denier” (yes, there are degrees of skepticism and one can disagree with parts of AGW, but the general usage is to apply it to anyone who even questions the science)The term is oft said to be attributed to likening skeptics to Holocaust deniers. Since the Holocaust is historical and climate change involves predicting the future, it seems misapplied. Currently, it is hurled about in the same fashion “communist” was in the McCarthy era. All it took was the word, the accusation—no evidence, no proof—to smear someone’s life. The term is currently hurled at congresspersons to try to ruin their reputations, with limited success. (This is PURE politics, no science whatsoever.) The “jokes” about tying people to tailpipes for an hour to demonstrate the toxic CO2 gas are no less threatening than in the McCarthy era threatening to turn in your neighbor as a “commie” if he did not agree with everything you wanted him to.
  5. The use of sacred texts (aka peer-reviewed journals)I am certain there will be outcries over the use of such terms. However, peer-reviewed journals are to climate science what holy books are to religion. They are the works of the god of science—nearly infallible, rarely questioned, and constantly quoted from. The journals contain the truth about the universe. All other journals and studies are without value and may constitute an affront to climate change science. It’s taken on faith that scientists who write in these journals are the only humans capable of understanding the great mysteries of the universe. Thou shalt trust no other texts in place of these.
  6. Climate change increases extreme weather.Extreme is a scary word which means the event lies far outside the normal. There was one study that looked at “extremes” and climate change done by NOAA in 2011 that was quite interesting. However, the media rarely seems interested in the distinctions between “extreme” and “just another naturally occurring storm” and blames every flood, drought, etc on climate change (see Watching the Deniers for examples). Al Gore made an entire presentation featuring disaster photos (plus said Cat 6 was being introduced for hurricanes—it is not). Scientists, if they were interested in accuracy, would have insisted this stop. At least the head of the IPCC stepped up and said no blaming tornadoes on climate change. More of this needs to be shouted out repeatedly if climate change science is to be considered to be science, not politics.
  7. It’s another record-breaking _________________. (Fill in the blank)Records fascinate people. They want to know the longest heat wave, the tallest building, the fastest car, who can eat the most hot dogs in 60 seconds. In all except the first case, there is little significance attributed to the record and people watch for the records to be broken.In climate change, however, records have huge significance—IF they go in the direction of warming (or maybe any directions, since warming can cause cooling). The longest heat wave is harbinger of doom. Hottest days in a summer of record-breaking temperatures predict a coming meltdown (or migration from the equator, minimum). There are millions, probably billions, of records in temperature, rainfall, drought. Records routinely get broken. If you limit these to the last 30 years, still, thousands are broken daily. Searching for patterns is said to allow us to predict weather. At one time, I thought this was true, too. Now I have learned that patterns can be pulled out of many sources, yet yield no useful predictions. Climate is supposed to vary—vary widely. We humans want it to have patterns—it seems nature did not. Looking for patterns can sometimes lead to predictable outcomes, but the more variables involved, the greater the chance of useless predictions. Records set in climate are just records—no magic, no crystal ball.

Watch for the marketing language—don’t let it steer your gaze from the actual data and methods. It’s not about flashy language—it’s about repeatable empirical (not model) data and results.

scientific badger

scientific badger

Open Weekend

I am away from blogging for a bit.  As noted by Skeptikal on my previous post, WtD is considering going in a new direction.  That’s fine–I follow well!    It was mentioned that climate change took a major hit in the Australian election–and he insists this will harm science while continuing to use such terms as “Greenhouse Mafia”.  He also complains there are mostly men in the new cabinet.  Hey, we should listen to women, right?  I, being a woman, should be listened to above the male at WtD!  How nice of him to notice!  (Just kidding, of course.  Male/female has nothing to do with the qualifications of a speaker or writer, though it does figure into surrogacy.  Beyond child-bearing, it is not relevant.)

Articles to check out:  (I am not endorsing all the aspects of these blogs.  Commenters who come in and rail about my endorsing “whatever” while be deleted.  If  you want to know if I agreed, ask.)

“One of the climate alarmist’s standard responses to any criticism of the theory of global warming is that unless the person is a climate scientist themselves, the point being made is from a position of ignorance and can therefore be ignored. As with most propaganda designed to silence any opposition, there’s an element of truth in it.

However, I think there are a number of obvious rebuttals to such an arrogant and dismissive stance.

The regularity with which the skeptic community eviscerates alarmist papers indicates to me that they’re actually more on top of the hard science than the alarmists researchers. In general, the depth of science expertise in the skeptic community is reflected in the technical content of the leading skeptic sites and the quality of the comments, which indicate an unusually high proportion of visitors with some sort of science, engineering or mathematical background; slightly geeky to be frank but the knowledge in other areas extends well beyond those narrow confines.”

Continued at  http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/why-would-anyone-believe-a-single-word-coming-out-of-their-mouth/

“I was once approached by a friend who is concerned about the danger of human-caused global warming. He asserted that when it comes to scientific issues of major public concern like this, it is “not what you believe but who you believe”. I think he meant that my then hesitant scepticism about global warming was pointless, for as a cartoonist I must be as inadequate to judge the science as he was. For that matter it seems all of us who are untrained in “climate science” have no option but to respect the peer-reviewed authority of the climate science establishment. Of course, as a revered public intellectual, my friend did not see it as his duty to sit on his hands. He felt bound, as many have, to vigorously support the scientific and political authority of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and regional associates like the CSIRO.”

Continued at http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2013/9/the-cartoonist-who-questioned-the-science-on-global-warming

I will not be available to answer comments for a few days, so please be patient.  Consider it more time to work on debunking my debunking!

Scientific Badger

Scientific Badger

 

What’s missing?

A reader alerted me to the absence of information on WtD concerning the recent election.   It’s true–the last entry was Sept. 5 and it was about how Melbourne was so eco-friendly and proved that only “nutters” don’t get this whole “save the planet” thing.  Looks like a majority of Australia either does get what shams global warming and sustainability marketing and political movements are or a majority  of the continent is comprised of “nutters”.  Can we look forward to a citizen science paper on how a very large portion of the Australian population has come to view Carbon Tax as a  sham and threw out the advocates, or would that simply shine the spotlight on the sham?

Abbot won, the carbon tax seems on it’s way out and I just hope Americans come to their senses in 2014 and fill the house and senate with all the “nutters” here.  It’s time to put an end to this whole sham.

Note:  I am not in favor of dirty water, dirty air, etc.  That is the typical response to people who oppose the “green” agenda.  I want the best use of the resources we have and for things to be done in as clean a way as possible.  I want things reused where possible.  What I don’t want is politicians making these decisions.  People will decide what they want–and cleaner, better manufacturing methods, etc are going to sell.  They already do.  I have a lot of faith in people making the right decisions as a group–I have zero faith in many of our politicians making the right decisions at this point.

Scientific Badger

Scientific Badger

More on von Storch

As reported in the media, an interview with Von Storch:

In which case you’d be running the risk of loosing your credibility?

“That’s exactly the point that I don’t like: that in the end we lose our credibility. For outsiders it always looks a bit like us climate scientists jump to any explanation that doesn’t go against our basic assumption – that CO2 is behind global warming. I do believe that this basic assumption is right, but it could also be that there are other factors we’ve underestimated so far.”

http://www.dw.de/climate-scientists-too-easily-jump-to-conclusions/a-17060565

Too much “certainty” can be a bad thing.