The website “Force Change” has a petition to get Fox News to stop calling “climate change” global warming. My answer: NO, NO, NOOOOOOOOO.

Look, the hero of “climate change” is James Hansen, who coined the phrase (correction: made popular the term) and gave it widespread attention when he used it IN FRONT OF CONGRESS. Your guy, the father of global warming, gave it that name. So how much more of what he said can be blatantly ignored or renamed because it’s not suiting one’s current purpose?

EVERY single graph I have ever seen on climate change advocates sites show ONLY numbers in excess of the average temperature. That’s called WARMING. Now, if Fox News is to change the name, a bunch of those anomalies are going to have start heading downward and into cooling. When that happens, then the use of “climate change” might be appropriate.

The theory of AGW is based on CO2 causing WARMING. Yes, that’s right. The whole theory is based on “WARMING”. Warming, warming, warming. Not one mention of cooling ever (at least not in regards to CO2. Only aerosols. And only after the “warming” slowed.) Just “local weather events”, which are weather events involving anything other than hotter temperatures. Wait, that didn’t work well. Which is probably why you warming believers are trying to welch out on the name. If you take “warm” out, maybe we’re too clueless to realize “warming” and “freezing” are different and that you only reference warm events when proving “climate change”. Wow, you really think we’re completely clueless, don’t you? No wonder WtD is depressed about the current disbelief in global warming.

Back to the “data”–all the trend lines on the graphs go up (where they don’t flatten out). I don’t ever see a long-term one (and long-term trends are all that count) going down. Going up is “warming”, right? So again, verification of GLOBAL WARMING.

I am now wondering: Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? I mean, the theory said it “warmed” the planet. But now we can’t say warming because “warming” isn’t true. It’s change. But cold is change, right? Cold doesn’t count because the planet’s average temperature is going up and CO2 causes WARMING. Dang, there’s that pesky word again. WARMING. So, back to “is CO2 a greenhouse gas”? If so, and we are putting it the air, then it would be GLOBAL WARMING, right????

So, unless you “climate change” people are willing to:
Disavow any association with the orinator of the theory that named this phenomena “global warming” and confused Fox News and everyone with the term,
Find some anamolies on the cooler side so the change is really “change” and not “warming”,
Find some long term graph trends that don’t show “warming”

I will hereby be using the term “global warming” and not climate change. Aiding and abetting a deception is not appropriate. I was willing to use the term as long as the WARMING was clearly understood. Since at least some of those on the believer’s side are now attempting to hide the true nature of their work, I will no longer use any term other than Global Warming.

Scientific badger

Scientific badger

A “New” Direction for WtD?

WtD has embarked on studying and writing about Paranoia. I have addressed some points of his first post here, briefly. (My answers in bold.)

This is my response to several of the points made:

Exploring the question of “How did we come to this”?
Humanity will agonise for millenia over the question of how we failed to address climate change, despite the fact the evidence was so certain and the anticipated impacts well understood decades before being felt.

Or celebrate that people woke up in time before we wasted billions more on useless “solutions” to a non-existent problem.

The campaign of deceit funded by the fossil fuel industry explains some of this, but not all of it. The free-market ideology and libertarian “faith” of conservative politicians and mining billionaires explains some of this failure, but not all of it.

Sure—blame people who had nothing to do with this. It’s easier than saying the science was flawed from the start.

Likewise the difficulty of explaining complex scientific concepts to the general public has contributed to the challenge. However we can’t attribute the present situation to this challenge alone.

No, you can’t.

I have long argued that the idea that fossil fuel companies have prevented action on climate change is simplistic and only tells part of the story.

And you are most correct. Fossil fuel companies love climate change stuff—they know all the alternative energy subsidies are fun to get and that there is no alternative to fossil fuels. They have nothing whatsoever to fear and much to gain.

It is broader than that: culture, economics, historical forces, politics and vested interest have all played a part to greater or lesser degrees.

Or maybe the science was BAD.

In examining the claims climate sceptic movement I was stunned to see the same claims made again and again in nearly every decade going back to the French Revolution. At times of financial crisis, war and profound societal change the same identical claims about conspiracies have been made.

Yet, warmists just love conspiracy theories—like the one about the oil industries, or the Koch brothers, or secret funding of skeptics. You just don’t recognize your own behaviours.

One could simply dismiss this as a few paranoid types recycling old conspiracy theories.

And one should. Though I’m sure you won’t.

But the question of why such beliefs remain persistent continued to rattle around in the back of my brain.

Comment censored lest I not be able to comment on my own blog.

But how could a world view, considered both fringe and inconsequential, have any impact? Consider the climate change debate.

Seriously, it was flawed science. How hard is that to understand?

Ask yourself just how central have claims of conspiracies been to arguments put forward by climate sceptics?

Very little. You would know that if you actually studied skeptics and their ideas.

I want to step back from the news cycle and the buzz of social media. WtD will be for those readers hoping to explore issues in-depth, and comment on them in an intelligent way.

Which means every comment had better agree with you or you’ll delete us? Now who’s likely to display some paranoia?

Perhaps Watching those Who watch the Deniers should study blame shifting as WtD studies paranoia?

At this point, I will not be following WtD as I did before. I consider dealing with the idea of paranoid conspiracies to be fascinating but not really valuable in a discussion of science. Unless we’re discussing psychology. Which we only do if someone tries to blame paranoia for people recognizing bad science.

Scientific Badger

Scientific Badger

A Day at Climate Central

Mark: Joe, why the heck is it so cold in here?

Joe: Governor says we have to save energy so the thermostat is set at 60 F.

Mark: What is that cr*p I’m seeing on TV? Someone’s claiming climate change must be wrong just because we have a brief cold period. What do they know about these things? Every climate science knows warming will be coming. DENIERS.

Where the heck are Brenda, Juan and Peter?  They should be out there talking to the new media about this little bump on the road to warming. Call them and get them in here NOW.

Joe: They’re all downstairs in the break room.

Mark: What??

Joe: Brenda has no heat. Propane deliveries have been slow to non-existent. Juan’ car wouldn’t start so he took a cab. He was mumbling something about antifreeze and who the **** knew it would be -4F today. Peter has no heat and the road to his house is not being plowed because the snow removal budget is empty. He didn’t get home last night. Oh, and Brenda’s kids are in the upstairs meeting room sleeping on the floor. Juan’s wife and kids are coming by after 4 pm and Peter is having his girlfriend who stayed at her mom’s house bring in food and fresh clothes. Seems our building is the warmest in the area.

Mark: Get them in here now.

(Employees traipse in)

Mark: Brenda, get on the phone and educate the news media about climate change. Make sure they get it right—this cold is climate change and saying anything else makes them look stupid and unscientific.

Peter, get on the phone to the paper. Same message.

Juan….Juan…Just go back to the break room for now.

Brenda:  Mark, the news media person stated “I don’t give a rat’s behind about your freaking climate change theories. My car slid off the road because ‘We don’t sand—winters will be mild and children will not know what snow looks like’. You know what you can do with your freaking warming……..” I think she hung up at that point. Or there was some problem with a couple of employees fighting over a space heater that could have distracted her.

Mark: Call her back.

Brenda: No can do. The network blocked our number.

Mark: Peter, what gives at the paper.

Peter: I don’t think I can repeat their suggestion, even if I wanted to. I may have lost my hearing in my left ear. I don’t think they really care about our theory.

Mark: Dammit, how did this happen?

Juan: The models clearly showed there would be no cold winters. I mean, look at what Dr. Viner said about children not knowing what snowfall would look like. Who needs road salt, plows, propane, or any of that stuff if it’s not going to snow.

Mark: He wasn’t being serious, you idiot. He just wanted to scare people into shutting off their fossil fuel usage. If the stupid deniers had stayed out of this, we’d be using wind and solar by now.

Juan, walking off, under his breath: And we’d be freezing our fannies off like right now….

Mark: What was that?

Juan: Nothing, sir.

Mark: This is ridiculous. How can people be so stupid as to not trust 97% of climate scientists? It’s just a momentary dip, for crying out loud. Brenda—get over there by the window and hold up a sign saying “It’s climate change, stupid”. Maybe we can get the word out that way.



Mark: What the heck was that?

Brenda comes running into the room, out of breath and covered in snow and glass: “Whoa, who knew a snowball could break a window? Some denier just threw one through the window where I was standing. You might want to call maintenance on that.”

Juan: There’s a group of very angry people out front throwing snow and rocks at the door and demanding someone come out and explain why it’s so freaking cold. I called the police, but they can’t get through right now—too much chaos. What do we do?

Mark: Shut off the lights and move away from the doors. The cold will drive them home soon enough. That’s what people get for being unscientific and deniers. Serves them right.

Is it safe yet?

Is it safe yet?

The Gods of Climate Science

Just brief post–I am venting here:

I foolishly was reading on a “science” blog again about climate change.  I realized why people despise and deplore climate change scientists.  Said scientists have elevated themselves to Gods–and not the nice, sweet type, but more like the Gods of Greek, Norse and Roman mythology who punished people constantly for simply existing.  The complete and utter arrogance is astounding.  To read the blogs, the climate scientists posses secret knowledge that only they can understand and we, the mere mortals, had better listen to them or be condemned as “deniers” and “unscientific”.  Seriously, do you hear yourselves???”

“I am the God of Climate Science.  You are incapable of understanding anything that I, in my infinite wisdom, know.  You are stupid, weak and committing blasphemy by asking questions of your GOD.  If I and my fellow gods declare warming will occur and snow occurs, just shut the **** up and learn to love it.  We KNOW what we are talking about.  How dare you question us????  We will rain fire down on you for your insolence.  We will throw you in prisons.  We will take your jobs and your lives and make them hell.  We are the GODS.  Hear us and obey.”

Really, this is what you sound like.  It is so incredibly wrong and so incredibly bad for what was a rather honored discipline called science that climate research and models have been elevated to the status of undeniable truth and a PhD makes one the High Priest of science in possession of the hidden truths.   So note, when people shun climate science and are “anti-science”, they are just doing what science has always done–rejected a religion they find deplorable and unbelievable.  The simple fact that science thought it could replace God and elevate itself to the position of omniscience doesn’t make it so.  It just makes people think of climate science and it’s preachers as adolescents with God complexes.    Who wants to read or study anything from a group with that attitude?  Which is probably why early indoctrination and severe punishment for disagreeing is the only way the religion survives.  I am always being reminded it was the church that stood in the way of Galileo.  Now, it’s the Church of the Climate Change Gods that stands in the way of science itself.  It’s always interesting that scientists slam Jehovah Witnesses and Mormans for “spreading the word” in such a pushy way, while the Gods of Climate Science are calling for the severe punishment (and even death) of all those who will not worship at their alters.   They have become the preachers and the One Way to truth and enlightenment.    Science has become that which it claimed to despise.


Scientific badger

Scientific badger



A Homework Assignment

A Homework Assignment:

This was a link I found when looking at what children are learning about climate change:×1024.png

The article contains links to the assignment.

The assignment is definitely fiction—of the very, very dishonest type.

First, the likelihood of a society based on wind,solar and hydro being able to create a hologram is highly questionable. Advanced electronics often require much electricity—more than “on-its-own-time”, hunter-gatherer wind and solar can produce. Hydro is more reliable, but in a society that has learned to “make do with less”, why would they waste energy on a hologram? Crayons and paper or chalk and a board are far more environmentally friendly. Maybe by 2512, someone will learn how to bend the laws of physics and get large quantities of electricity from sources that have never been shown to work well anywhere at any level and that would allow the sophistication indicated in the story. Perhaps with all that new open water, the people used their highly valuable, limited resources to plant turbines everywhere. Or maybe they put them in the Gulf Stream and perhaps further altered the climate. Hard to guess.

This brings us to the major deception—that Kansas could ever be beachfront property. There are only two ways I can think of for this to happen:

1.Some kind of huge fault line slips and land plunges into the ocean, resulting in land south of Kansas submerging. This has nothing to do with climate change. I’m not sure it’s even possible. There may be no fault lines that could result in this type of massive land movement.

2. Aliens arrived with billions and billions of gallons of water and drowned out a huge part of the human race. Since no aliens are mentioned (though that would have clearly indicated the “science fiction” nature of the assignment), either the aliens worked in secret or there were no aliens. I’ll leave you to decide which. Again, climate change is in no way involved in this version.

Why is this such a huge misrepresentation? Because it is IMPOSSIBLE for climate change to make Kansas beachfront property and turn the Smokey Mountains into islands. Don’t take my word for it. Check out this link: for a map showing what the planet would look like if all ice melted. The maximum rise is around 200 feet if all ice on the planet melted. Because humans, for some reason unfathomable to me, tend to live on coasts or near waterways, the rise would have an effect. Europe would probably be hardest hit, since their population density is already high. China would be even more crowded. However, there would be plenty of land space for people to move to. This would be a gradual transition, over decades. Note: Calling people who move inland due to their land being flooded by sea level rise “climate refugees” is pure politics and highly inaccurate. People move from places they don’t like or cannot live in any more all the time. The word “refugee” conjures up war-type refugee camps, which in no way are similar. Sea level rise is gradual and requires no “fleeing” from the change. Climate does not bomb cities and seek out people to kill as happens in war. So cease with the “refugee” misrepresentation. Let’s have some honesty in science rather than propaganda.

You may wonder why I’m so furious at the “homework” assignment. The assignment may be labeled “fiction” but it is clearly designed to evoke fear in the students, making them afraid of their current lifestyle that involves fossil fuels. That fear is based on a physical impossibility, not facts or science. It’s a very deliberate deception. In the long run, it will cause major damage to science. Children will learn they’ve been manipulated for political purposes and come to see science as nothing more than a political tool. In a worst case scenario, they will become paralyzed by fear. Any trust there may have been in the scientific field will be lost. We see that starting today—people are losing trust in science when everything is proof of the theory of climate change caused by man. Even elementary science tells us no theory can be proven by everything—if it cannot be proven wrong (falsified), it’s not science. As the children grow older and learn the consequences of belief in a theory that is questionable and bad science which is being used to attempt massive reductions in people’s standard of living, their belief that science is politics will only grow.

It’s bad for science. If we want to keep the discipline of science, we must address these problems and stop trying to indoctrinate children instead of educating them.


Scientific Badger

Scientific Badger








Maybe It’s Not about the Science

A recent posting on Jo Nova’s blog: “There goes another consensus. Crash diets solve diabetes in 3 weeks” has caused me to call into question the motivations of some questioners, or bare minimum, their actual understanding of science.

At question: a “new” study that shows 11 Type 2 diabetics who ate 600 calories per day for 8 weeks “cured” type 2 diabetes.  In researching this, I found the following websites to be interesting:

The first was from July 2013.  The second from June 2011 and third from 2013/2014.  All three seem to originate from the same university.  All had a very tiny number of subjects.  The study from 2011 is very nearly the same as 2013, so much so that I cannot tell if it’s actually separate research or just a new release.

In all cases, promoting this as “consensus busting” is very, very bad science.  Both studies were tiny, both done at the same university.  It appears to be the same physician, Dr. Mark Hyman, who also sells books and has a newsletter.  (I am not saying that this means he is a bad physician.  I am just curious how a physician gets time to write books, do research, write newsletters, see patients, do interviews and still sleep.)  Of course, even if Dr. Hyman were a complete quack, he might have hit on the truth.   It’s just that there is no evidence that he has.  From what I can find, there was no randomization, 11 subjects are not nearly enough to generalize from, and it’s not clear if there was a control group.  In other words, this is junk science.  Being generous, this would be a good place to actually start a study.

The original inspiration for the study seems to have been remission in diabetics after bariatric surgery (which Dr. Hyman does not approve of, it appears).   Only 27% actually were “cured” of their type 2 diabetes:

“Publication of a new, albeit retrospective, study has shown that almost a third of obese patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing gastric bypass were effectively “cured” of their diabetes, being in complete remission as per the strictest definition possible that was maintained for 6 years after the surgery.  ”    (  This study appears to be actually done with proper research techniques and cautions against too much optimism.

Why am I writing on this?  Because using a very poorly done study that cannot be generalized and claiming consensus is wrong is a frightening thing to see on a “science” blog.  It’s also indicative that the author either desperately wants to prove consensus can be wrong and hopes no one will notice the bad science, or the author really did not understand how bad the science was.  Either way,  I find the entire  posting deeply disturbing.  The comments were equally disturbing–how many people hate “Big Pharma” and will jump on anything that might help prove how bad drugs are is quite frightening.  Worse, none seem to care if the science is good.  While most of the time, I am loathe call things “confirmation bias”, some things just seem to be glaring examples of said phenomena.  The same people who decry the lack of science in climate change research jump on any tiny little thread of information to condemn pharmaceutical companies.  

While proving consensus can be wrong (and has been) may be a valuable thing, using junk science to do it just makes the questioners as unscientific as the advocates.  It’s very sad when both sides veer off from science in an attempt to “win”.  No one wins and science loses.