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 insideclimatenews.org)
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.”
(from insideclimatenews.org)

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.)



It’s here!


Fluffy and Fido are ruining the environment.  According to a study out of UCLA.

YES!  I predicted this months ago.  When the push to remove meat from our diets was revived, I kept noting that dogs and cats are huge consumers of meat—especially cats.  They have higher quality meat food than many humans.  So when are the enviros and global warming advocates going to say “Your pet goes vegetarian or your pet goes.  Keeping your meat-eating pet is evil and you’re a bad person for doing so”?  The day arrived.

Okay, the article doesn’t quite say that.  It does clearly imply this.  Worse, those fluffy critters are given 25 to 30% of the blame for meat consumption.  This makes Fido and Fluffy clear threats to the future of this planet.  You pet owners are so very selfish and uncaring out there.  Time to dump the pets and save the planet.  (Yes, we know you think Fido is a member of the family.  You can keep Fido until he dies, but NO MORE PETS if you care about the planet.)

It is possible you could have a hamster or guinea pig, something that does not eat meat.  However, keep in mind that there have been suggestions that eating such things as mice and rats could provide meat without the environmental impact.  Your pet could become some true believer’s next meal if things get dicey.  Best to just get a pet rock.  Those are much more environmentally friendly.

Lack of pets will give you all more time to sit and watch the latest Al Gore fiction and reflect on why saving the planet matters if life on the planet is so dreary and useless without pets, cars, planes and lights.

(See: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/08/05/dog-made-global-warming/ )


The Latest Threat to the Planet

Of course it’s just weather…..

From NOAA:

“Monday…Isolated to scattered thunderstorms. Some storms could be
severe in portions of Johnson and Natrona Counties. Windy to very
windy in much of central and southern Wyoming. Snow will move
into western mountains later Monday night.

Tuesday….Heavy wet snowfall likely in the northern and western
mountains, including Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks.
Snowfall, slick roads and limited visibility likely over mountain
passes. A few inches of snow possible in far west valleys Tuesday
morning. Very windy across southern and central areas.”

Heavy, wet snowfall on predicted June 13th in the Tetons and the Park.  Hope the tourists brought warm coats.


Heavy wet snow!  (for illustration purposes only!)