It’s not climate change causing fires

Alaska is burning and it’s due to global warming. No, wait, that’s impossible. One cannot attribute any single event to warming. What one can do is declare they are a scientist, then make psychic predictions about future fires. That makes the predictions scientific. Yes, Alaska is burning. It’s dry and hot and it happens. It happens more frequently where people live and recreate. So my psychic prediction is if we made everyone live in a tiny area, fires would decrease dramatically. Except for the ones caused by lightening, which would increase in size dramatically with no one around to put them out.  Note: do not check on historical fire data. Your belief in global warming could be affected.  Huge fires occurred long before the industrial revolution.

Foray into fiction here

I was reading a blog that mentioned “Waterworld” and the poles melting. (To be honest, I had to check on that. The movie was so bad I didn’t remember why it was the world was flooded.) “Waterworld” was science fiction. Does anyone remember the meaning of the word “fiction”? It seems the news has become fiction, too, so maybe soon we’ll see “MediaApocalypse” where all members of the media are eaten by creatures that crawled out of the not-so-dying-ocean and were angered that humans were thinking they were so big and powerful they controlled the weather. We could have Bill Nye eaten early on, along with Michael Mann and all the network news anchors. After that, the film pretty much ends as people go back to their daily lives and stop hiding under tables waiting for the end. Not as messy as a zombie apocalypse, but there’s no good way to naturally produce a zombie.

Wow, it gets get more and more out in left field

Under the “Unbelievably Stupid Waste of Time and Money” comes this from the Daily Mail:
If you are paying the slightest bit of attention (okay, there went half the audience….), when it’s brought up that people breathe out CO2, it is immediately, loudly and rudely pointed out that ONLY fossil fuels cause this problem. The cows are eating grass and then releasing the CO2 as part of the carbon cycle that is natural. One might argue that a TINY percentage of CO2 is added to the air, but only a scientifically illiterate person claims cattle add to the problem. Yet, here we are with money wasted trying to decrease cattle flatulence while telling people that breathing out CO2 doesn’t change anything. A scientific theory?  Unlikely with this kind of commentary.  Black is white and white is black.

It’s not to save the planet, it’s to kill capitalism

EPA proposes tougher fuel-efficiency standards for trucks from “The Washington post”. This headline should read “EPA proposes to further collapse the economy in the name of saving the planet”. It is obvious this is not about people and their having good lives, but rather pushing everyone into poverty and/or government assistance. This is the perfect way to create lay-offs, shut down businesses, etc all of which are exactly what the EPA wants (and possibly the Pope, since closing businesses and laying people off cuts into that crass commercialism his encyclical is decrying). Try not to think about the reality that developed nations do far less environmental damage than the poverty filled nations. Fossil fuels allow people to not cut wood for heat, not burn dung for cooking, not clear cut in the hopes of growing more food and not starving, etc. Why would anyone want to have people starving, polluting the air with filthy fuels and clear cutting forests to survive? Maybe the Washington post could run an article explaining this.

(Moderation of comments may be slow as I will be away from the computer for a couple days.  Apologies in advance.)

Broken theories, encyclicals

I would like to reiterate again that the failure of the models does not prove that the idea of putting more CO2 put in the atmosphere causes warming is wrong. It reduces the theory to a hypothesis, an unproven one. The models created to “prove” the theory are seriously wrong and must be discarded. To prove CO2 put here by humans is a problem, one must have a NEW model and a NEW theory about how CO2 interacts in the atmosphere. Otherwise, it remains an unproven hypothesis. It is not possible at this point to “save” the models. All have failed miserably–all 102 models. There is no coming back from such complete and utter failure.

The planet at this point is not experiencing temperature rises, more extreme weather, or any other predicted values. Sure, a prediction here and there may come true, but to quote the global warming advocates, those successful predictions aren’t “global” (as in science-wide success). To believe that the warming “will come” is simple faith in broken models and very, very unscientific. Redrawing trend lines to ignore the plateauing of the temperatures, or simply using the same trend line one always sees and claiming it shows warming when clearly the data does not, is very, very unscientific.

The leaked encyclical from the Vatican contains virtually all this broken science and presents it as fact. This is somehow presumed to exonerate scientists, though how a faith-based organization’s agreement helps science is vague. Seems this would only help the questioners who already see believing in broken models as faith-based belief, not science. It also seems the believers of warming are not as far from faith-based as they would have us believe.

The media and politics probably have far more to do with the excitement of the upcoming encyclical’s release. Scientists are busy trying to create data to prove the warming didn’t plateau (you gotta love interpolation and extrapolation–you can get any answer you want and since science standards are completely ignored when it comes to climate, you don’t even get fire or flunked for creative data manufacturing) to worry about what the Vatican does or not endorse.

This YouTube video from ABC news in 2008 is quite enlightening:

It’s interesting to note that last time anyone checked, NYC was not underwater…..Talk about failed predictions. The media was never very accurate, but there was no outcry from scientists against any of this. Silence is construed as agreeing with the usage, even if they knew it was a lie. There are scientists who speak out and are vilified, so speaking out was and is an option. Scientists who remained silent are giving tacit agreement to the media message.

Thinkprogress has this headline: “2015 May Bring Long-Awaited Step-Jump In Global Temperatures”
Talk about celebrating doom and gloom. It’s like a cancer doctor doing a happy dance because his patient developed new cancer. Glee over impending doom.

They’re watching!

Checking out blogs that watch deniers (since this blog’s namesake shut down):

Hot Whopper: a total obsession with Anthony Watts, the majority of which consists of insults, personal attacks, etc. So what happened to the science? Guess insults are better than actual data. Is using the false statistic about 97%. Using a fully discredited statistic indicates accuracy and truthfulness is not necessary. Move along, nothing to see here. “North Korea poisoning atmosphere to destroy America weather”. Lew, are you out there? Global warming advocates appear to suffer from interesting conspiracy ideation.

The photo at the top of the blog show a person flying on an airline. Denial. I think so.

Gawker 3/28/14 “Arrest climate-change deniers” Guess the science isn’t all that convincing, is it? Also repeated the false 97% statistic. Where to start? The usual 97% wrong statistic. He states the IPCC is composed of scientists. It is not. The previous head was a railroad engineer. Science studies are submitted, but the IPCC does no original research and they are not scientists. Using the consensus false statistic. Attempts to humiliate anyone who disagrees. This is a political organization, so actual presentation of any science is not expected, nor was any delivered.  (See March 18 post for their attempts to humiliate those who date disagree.) Suggests we name storms after “deniers”. Sure, that’s very scientific and advances the cause. On the other hand, it could backfire and draw much attention to those who know there is no 97% consensus and only shaky science. “Arctic ice free sooner than previous models projected” Translation: Our models are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Salon: Roy Spencer calls warmists “Nazis”. Salon calls Roy “repulsive and an extremist”. So all we have here is name calling. Again, no science, no proof of CAGW, nada.

Al Gore: “Climate change deniers should pay a price” Al has multiple, huge homes, flies on private jets, and has a carbon footprint approaching that of a small country. So what price should Al pay? Seriously, he took half a billion dollars from an oil nation (assuming they actually paid). He is totally denying the seriousness of global warming. He clearly does not believe it to be a threat. You can’t get much more denial that excessive use of the fossil fuels you say are killing the planet. So, again, what price?

Latest developments

News on the global warming front:

Environmentalists reportedly tried unsuccessfully to revoke Doug Ericksen’s degree in political science and environmental policy because the senator opposed mandatory cap-and-trade and low-carbon fuel standards. (

Seems you either tow the line with the radical environmentalist philosophies or else. Trying to take away a degree that was earned as punishment for disagreement may be a new low. (Actually, see below for the newest low.)

Seems it’s very chilly the world over (except for India) and yet it’s almost the hottest April on record. One has to wonder how there can be snow on Memorial Day in Maine, snow in New Zealand, below average temperatures over much of the US and yet it’s hotter than ever. Of course, the global warming advocates are going to say “That’s not global” (neither is India. yet that has not stopped the headlines about global warming and dying citizens of India) but it seems to be very, very widespread. This is a good example of where using “average” can lead to very different ideas than just looking at the temperatures themselves. No one has yet to explain clearly and concisely why averaging widely disparate values after homogenizing them is better than just looking at the data.

Speaking of homogenized values, I am still searching for an explanation of why people are putting their faith in data that is constantly adjusted and often estimated. If the data is that poor, we have a serious problem. Every uncertainty, from the estimated values to the corrections for time of day, missing stations, and many others, the uncertainty accumulated would huge. Consider that temperatures vary radically as little as 5 miles away. A day can start out hot and then get much colder and vice versa. Yes, there are mathematical formulas used for the adjustments. Some are automated. I don’t know that I see this as sinister, but more as a huge introduction of uncertainty. Using data that has to be massaged at every turn is not very good science. The impatience with waiting for accurate data is part of the problem.

Consider: You go to your physician and he weighs you. He then subtracts the 2 lbs he guesses your shoes weigh. Your blood pressure reading seems a bit off. There were problems with the cuff in the past, so he subtracts 10 points top and bottom to cover the cuff not being accurate. Then he takes your temperature. This is adjusted by 2 degrees because he has not been able to get the thermometer properly calibrated. When writing your prescription, he gives you 80 tablets for 90 days at one per day because most people skip a few days so why include those days? He then bills you for a 15 minute visit and adjusts the cost based on his computer software not calculating accurately. At some point in all of this, one should begin to wonder about how accurate your doctor’s diagnosis and examinations are. The cumulative error starts to grow and grow.

Yet, temperatures used in global warming calculations are adjusted over and over. The fact that we do not have a good record of temperatures should have been a clue that it’s highly unlikely we can reach 95% certainty on the predictions. Rather than admit this, the adjustments continue, as the public starts to wonder about the reality of global warming. Add that to the obvious mismatch between what people see and what is being told to us, and one can see why global warming’s credibility is waning.

Update on a new low for so-called climate science:

If you can’t win on evidence, sue the dissenters and silence them. What the actual admission here is that the government is weak and powerless, with a very poor argument that they cannot sell to the American people. The fossil fuel companies, taxes and regulated by the government, are sooo much more believable than Obama or Kerry or Senator Whitehouse that the only way the government can foist its draconian rules upon the people of the United States is to sue them to silence them. These individuals might as well be holding up signs that say “We are losers and not believable.”

Not that this is not in line with most pseudoscience. Personal injury lawyers make millions off of bad science by convincing jurors big companies are evil and lie. One must ask how much the personal injury lawyer makes and why doesn’t that corrupt him? Same question for those receiving government funding. How can they not be corrupted? Except by the magic that makes those on the global warming side pure and unaffected while everyone else is tainted. Sure–and I have beachfront property in Kansas, if any of you are interested.