Earth Day

Earth Day 2018

Another “green” thing. Or that’s how this day is portrayed. The reality is those who back Earth Day are the ones doing earth the most damage. There is a push to return to past times without fossil fuels. This would be catastrophic and cause massive human casualties. Since the reason given by some for wanting to save the planet is to save human beings, this move is 180 degrees off for achieving the stated goal. Plus, the time before fossil fuels was very hard on the environment–burning coal and dung, massive amounts of animal feces everywhere due to horses being the transportation mode, people had nothing but outhouses, if that. A very bad time for the earth.

Renewables are the panacea for saving earth–“free” energy. Well, “free fuel”, extremely pricey and damaging devices using that free fuel. Much of the mining and manufacturing for renewables is done in countries with very lax environmental laws, not the US. This has resulted in ecological damage on a grand scale, but so long as the “greens” can’t see it, it’s not really there. Then there is the damage to wildlife and scenic areas. When Earth Day was started, electrical power lines were under attack for being ugly and reportedly causing illnesses, etc, if you lived too close to the lines. Now, it’s “cover the planet with those high power beauties”. What changed? Not the power lines. Must be the Earth Day supporters–now they don’t care about damage because their pet projects need the lines. Remember when killing eagles was bad? Not any more. It’s okay to cause a species extinction in the name of saving the planet, you know, is just fine. Only if you’re an evil coal company are you in trouble for destroying birds and bats. Which is interesting, since the lives of the birds and bats seem more a political agenda that actual science. You don’t think………?

Then there’s the terrifying “extreme weather” lie out there. Statistics show weather is no more extreme than it was in the past. Like all things weather, the number of storms and intensity vary from year to year, decade to decade. The East Coast of the US had four very heavy snow storms this year. There were hurricanes in the last year or so. Before that, no major hurricanes hit the US for 12 years. Yes, the term “super storm” was invented to replace the terror of the missing hurricanes, but the facts say the weather has not become more intense, extreme or anything similar. There are more people living on the planet, so obviously more people are affected by the weather–storms, flooding, droughts. However, being affected by something does not mean that something is more common, more intense or anything like that. It just means more people are affected. It means dramatic news coverage and endless reminders of how mean and cruel nature is becoming because we burn fossil fuels are the staple of the media. Even if it isn’t true. Truth is so nebulous, you know.

For Earth Day, just take a walk outside if it’s nice enough and enjoy the planet you live on. It’s very sturdy and will be around for a long time. The “end of the earth” predictions have been around as long as humans have lived here. Total eclipses used to bring that terrifying predictions of an apocalypse as did earthquakes. Last year, people traveled thousands of miles to see a total eclipse in the United States August 2017. There were no “it’s the end of the world” predictions. We can learn, if we are willing to.



Cottontail in snow


Dandelions in snow


The brunch crowd


Unusual mule deer-looks earless



Warm makes cold makes snow

Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!! Global warming is going to cause massive freezing, many feet of snow, crop failures due to early frost, energy poverty world wide. How can that be, you ask? Magic—no really, magic. That’s how global warming works. Magic. You add more heat to a system and you get more cold, even though the overall average never goes down. Magic. Suddenly, global warming just makes things move around—more cold here, more heat there. So unlike the claim made for CO2, global warming is not evenly distributed around the globe. So in some places all that CO2 makes it hot and other places it makes it cold, even with the reradiating warming things. How? Magic. Even with brutal winters, the global temperature anomaly from the average of all stations after adjustments and estimates continues to go up. Okay, that one’s not magic, just great fudging of data. What?!?!? You say scientists fudge data? Well, yeah, they do. They are human, they like their house, their nice car, their job and the boss wants global warming to be true. So it is, one way or another.

The true believer sees nothing wrong with these logical inconsistencies. He would see something wrong in any other logical inconsistency, but not his heart-felt belief system. Of course, that is not science, but long ago many recognized that global warming was anything but science. The believers just throw in voting for the truth in science (that 97% thing) and “basic physics” (which requires a super computer to run all the “simple” parts) hoping you’re a clueless pushover and will jump to their belief system. If you don’t, you’re a denier, a bad person, need to be jailed. Yep, that’s how scientists always talk. No need for the truth—just jail all opponents. Wait, didn’t they complain about Galileo? Yes, I believe they did. Hypocrisy added to the list. Science does not include hypocrisy—belief systems do.

It’s weather, they say. Really, then why are heat waves NOT weather? At least every time a heat wave happens, it’s climate change. How can it be weather when EVERYTHING is due to climate change? It HAS to be affected by climate change—that’s the rule. Climate is the average of the weather in an area over three or so decades. But weather is also climate change because climate change affects everything so climate change affects climate change. Or something like that. It kind of gets circular at this point, A proving B proving B proving A proving C proving B…..You get the idea. How any rational human being falls for this, I cannot say. I guess some people really loved the guy on the sidewalk with the sign that said “the end is near” and this is their way of replacing him.



Global warming buries the dog ramp

Random ramblings and rants (the 3Rs)

Gleaned mostly from troll baiting on the net.  Trolls are a fascinating source of the most skewed thought patterns out there.

From the “humans did this department”:

“It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. ”

Note that only half the increase is due to CO2, according to the IPCC.  Don’t see that much in the news.  Humans have not done that much it seems.


“It’s just a few boo-boos”

“The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) is a report on climate change created with the help of a large number of contributors, both scientists and governmental representatives. There has been considerable political controversy over a small number of errors found in the report, and there have been calls for review of the …”
This is like saying the doctor amputated the wrong leg, but it was a small, understandable mistake. Saying the Himalayan glaciers were going to be gone, when even the “gray literature” used (forget peer-reviewed as long as the paper says what is needed to be said the IPCC is okay with it) did not say gone, but vastly reduced, is not a “small mistake”. There may be only three or four mistakes, but if some of the mistakes are HUGE and a result of politics, then there is no reason to trust the IPCC to present actual science. Come on, a HUGE mistake tends negates trust in any correctness of the rest of the report. This is a report that is reviewed, commented on, and supposedly accurate. It obviously is not that.

Saying this is no big deal—back to the doctor that amputates the wrong leg. If the doctor gets it right 95% of the time (the IPCC likes 95% and 97%, so use either one), then 5 people out of a hundred lose the wrong leg. It’s not a big deal??? Really, I think it would be if these warmists were the one with the wrong leg removed. There is a constant questioning of “do you trust your doctor?” and if 95 doctors agreed….What if your doctor was right 95% of the time and you are one of the 5%? Suddenly, medical errors become a BIG deal. Why are climate science HUGE errors not a big deal? Why make excuses for bad, very, very bad, science ?

The scientists encouraged the media and the public to not get bogged down on the Himalayan glacier error and to look at the bigger picture of the warming planet instead. (from
Yes, if you are one of the 5% who lose the wrong leg, look at the bigger picture of the 95% who were saved by this doctor. Stop sweating the small stuff and complaining about tiny little mistakes. Nitpickers……

“Every sentence in these summaries is discussed and argued about and finally agreed by consensus — not a vote — by scientists and representatives from more than 130 governments,” said Nicholls. “Many of these government representatives are also scientists.”

NOT a vote????? Do none of these people speak or understand English? Consensus IS a vote. It cannot be anything else. If you don’t go around and ask each scientist if they do or do not agree with the findings, how do you judge consensus?  Raised hands?  Still a vote.  You just declare it, without any empirical evidence? Is that what they are saying here? We just decided to stop discussing the topic and took whatever was said last and declared consensus? That’s worse than voting—consensus by random chance of what was going on when someone said “stop”. No matter how hard these people try, either they vote for scientific truth or randomly choose one. There aren’t many other conclusions available from what they are claiming is going on. Throwing darts at a dart board is the only other one I can come up with.





Here we are with record cold in the USA and the press and Mikey Mann are telling us this is global warming. The IPCC said “Occasional cold winters will continue to occur (Räisänen and Ylhaisi, 2011).” What occasional means is not clear and probably intentionally so. The last few winters have been very harsh in the USA and this year cold records are dropping nationwide, with snow further south than seen in decades. There was no prediction of colder winters by the global warming people until after the fact. Much like everything else in climate science, there’s a constant moving of the goal posts, much like Lucy in Peanuts and her football. If it’s cold, it’s global warming, if it’s warm, it’s global warming, global warming is just flat out magic. Literally.

The cold is not limited to the USA. Russia is extremely cold. There was snow on the Sahara, again. Yet, the global warming advocates cling steadfastly to the “the world is heating up” mantra. Nothing deters them from their faith in the warming and it being manmade, not natural. That is not science.

Maybe it’s time we stopped listening to these “scientists” and instead checked out the window. If it’s freezing out there, you might want to consider planning for cold, just in case the science is not settled.




I have been trying to come up with a way to explain how weather and climate are inextricably entwined.  Global warming people always have said “It’s weather, not climate” until the marketing department recently came up with “extreme weather” when climate and weather were once again the same thing.   When it’s warm, of course.  The freezing above is just “weather”.  With the “settled science”, it’s very fluid what is weather what is climate.  Also, climate scientists are now claiming warming causes cold or something like that.  You know, there’s feet of snow out there but it’s due to global warming.  I can’t see how rational people are going to buy that, but it’s their marketing department……

Climate is actually weather and weather creates climate.  Climate is just a mathematical manipulation of temperatures, etc, into an average, or some other statistic that gives the desired outcome.  In fact, people often ask what the climate is like and are answered with examples of the weather.

One possible analogy to help clarify the interrelationship would be making bread.  Bread, depending on the recipe, includes flour, salt, sugar, yeast and water.  The separate ingredients are not bread, but put together (and baked) they ARE bread.  If you then back trace from the finished product, you get the flour, salt, etc.   If any ingredients are changed in quantity or type, the finished product will probably be affected.  (You could call this “ingredient sensitivity”!  I don’t know if there are forcings involved but could be.)  This is just as changes in weather can change the numeric values of “climate”—average rainfall, average temperature, average amount of sun, etc.  There really is no way to separate the two.  When we’re seeing snow and freezing cold over widespread areas, there’s good reason to wonder how the “climate” is warming, not cooling.  Much the same as adding a cup of sugar instead of 1/4 cup of sugar to the bread.  When the bread is finished, you recognize that the ingredients have changed.  Looking now at the “warming of the planet”,  warming is far from apparent, irregardless of the yarn being spun by the global warming advocates.  The ingredients have not changed so far as we can tell.

Please feel free to suggest other ways the weather/climate thing might be explained.

It’s Christmas time again

I read that that the various MSM suspects are out warning about Santa and global warming:

Laplanders are being affected by climate change due to more warming than elsewhere, reindeer pulling a heavy sleigh are emitting too much methane, and Santa is moving to the south pole, complete with an announcement that Santa has signed an agreement to relocate, making him a climate refugee and one paper saying belief in Santa may help children think counterfactually due to belief in flying reindeer (I think that last one is a positive, but not sure). Last year, reindeer were shrinking due to climate change.  All of this overlooks the fact that Santa built a workshop on floating ice out in the middle of nowhere.  I can’t see how global warming is a big deal to him, but who am I to say?

So, once again, this is the real threat to Santa Claus due to the global warming scam:


Happy Holidays.

Odds n Ends, bits and pieces

There is a constant claim that oil companies are squelching climate change. Total lie. 100%. First, oil gets much money from those useless wind and solar plants, enough that NextEra power built a natural gas plant next to the Everglades basically for free, courtesy of the robbing of taxpayers for “renewables”. Second, they can stop wind, solar and “leave it in the ground” dead in a week. Shut down ALL sale of oil, gas and fossil fuels immediately. Right now, today, this hour. The problem is solved. However, this is not happening. Therefore, it is PROOF that oil and gas are not opposed to climate change research. The whole “Big Oil” is just stupidity on the part of global warming believers and indicative of the fact that many do not think at all, just emote and dredge up conspiracy theories. Big Oil can shut them down NOW. It doesn’t. It does not want to.

People often use a horse and buggy analogy and call people backward and wanting to hinder progress when it comes to switching to electric cars. The analogy is totally incorrect. Proper analogy: First, electric cars are still cars in every way except the engine. They have 4 doors, windshields, etc. Horse and buggy to cars in NOTHING like that and only a very uneducated, foolish person would make such a comparison. One could conceivably state that changing to a western saddle versus an english saddle for horseback riding was somewhat similar. That was still a horse, still a rider, but a different saddle. Maybe the change from stick shift to automatic transmissions would be close. Or those ABS brakes that are so annoying to those of us who learned to drive before the advent thereof. Whatever the analogy, it CANNOT include two very different items. Electric versus gas cars is NOT two different things. It’s ONE car, two engine choices. It’s not monumental, it’s not a quantum leap. It may turn out to be liker laser disks or Betamax or any of thousands of failed ideas, assuming we can keep the government out of the picture. It’s not at all about progress—it’s DIFFERENT, not necessarily BETTER. That is a separate issue.


Belief in global warming is the belief that humans control the weather. Sure, SKS and other bloggers and climate researchers scream “weather and climate are not the same”. That is true. Climate is the average of weather. Average the data, then the anomaly from the average is calculated and we get the anomaly from the GAT (a mysterious number whose value is difficult to locate and may vary from source to source). Then, we get “WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE” thereafter. Or something like that.

Calculating average: a+b+c+d/4=e To change e, you must change a, b, c, d or one or all of these. A, b,c, and d are weather when we talk climate change. The only way to change the climate is to change the weather. Yes, I know they average, homogenized, estimate and so forth. But bottom line, the only way to change the climate is to change the weather. To fix global warming, we must be able to change the weather. You can dance around it all you like, but bottom line, that’s what has to happen.

I read it has snowed in all 50 states now—earlier than in the past. Yet all we hear about are hurricanes and wildfires. Why is there nothing on earlier snow? Why no discussion of the jet stream freezing the East coast? Oh, because it wouldn’t play well in Al Gore’s movies? Yes, that’s probably it. So much for science….(I’m not saying cooling proves anything. I’m saying the media is BIASED to the point that any impartiality is probably a chance happening.)