End of Earth Day

The planet earth was reduced to rubble by the greedy, horrible people of the 21st century, who hated the environment, hated wildlife and loved only themselves. Not the oil industry, not the chemical industry, but the lying scum that pushed the Green New Deal. It was based on greed and destruction and because people were too lazy and uncaring, it killed millions. People starved, froze and died of heat. Fortunately, more died than expected, and the rich, greedy, sure-they-were-immune, died right along with those they murdered. Small patches of humans in very isolated areas did survive and it is hoped that it will take at least a millennium before the evil, greedy, haters again destroy the planet. Perhaps longer, since the greedy, evil hates managed to destroy many themselves too. This was what humans WANTED and PLEADED for and this is what they got. 

Animals extinctions were at the Sixth Extinction level, which was another goal of the evil and greed haters. Since most humans could care less about wildlife, this was very, very easy to achieve. The only animals that survived were the ones the rich and greedy could make money off of—polar bears, elephants, etc. Many animals perished because the rich and greedy killed off all their food covering the planet with wind turbines, solar panels, huge mining operations, poisoned areas due to radiation from rare earth mining and processing, cutting of the forests to keep warm before the millions froze to death due to lack of heating. Clear cutting of 90% of the forests killed of thousands of species of animals as people desperately tried to survive. In the end, the resources ran out and the animals and humans died, as was the plan. The rich and greedy had no way to heat or eat either, and died soon thereafter. It was an appropriate end to a planet that loved money and hated humanity and the world.

Destroy the Earth Day


It’s Earth Day, when science proves religion by agreeing that the earth will end in fire:

Okay, not all religions, but since it’s “the science” the religion it agrees with must be the one true religion.

Some of you may be wondering about “the science” of evolution, which “disproves God”. Well, aside from the fact that the Big Bang doesn’t answer where the original material came from, climate change COMPLETELY NEGATES EVOLUTION!!!! Nothing is allowed to change, nothing is allowed to go extinct, the temperature must NEVER go up or down. Really, Darwin is deader than a doornail at this point. Climate change ended the idea of evolution forever. Perhaps we should thank them for this contribution.

Now, in honor of Earth Day, my furnace is on 74F, my lights are all on, and I’m using as much energy as I can in one day. Long live climate change and Earth Day, when we can all celebrate by using energy without limits!!!


Temperature measurement problems in global warming



This is a temperature chart (fictional) showing hourly temperatures.  Global warming does not use hourly temperatures, but rather daily highs and lows.  This appears to be because we do not have a computer capable of dealing with the huge volume of data that would involve.  However, when we are looking at the temperature of the earth and how it relates to energy in/energy out, this is important.  As you can see (click on image to enlarge), there is a huge difference in the actual averages of the hourly temperatures each day.  This should matter.  The averages are 27, 29.42, 36.75, 31.125, 38.125 and 32.5.  Only the final day is close to the mean of the min/max, which is 32.  They vary from 6 degrees above the average to 5 degrees below.  While these are fabricated numbers for illustration purposed, they are based on actual daily temperatures that I have seen occur.  One could take actual temperatures and they would yield the same result.  People know that some days are cool and them reach a very short high in the afternoon, other days are warm after a low overnight.  Yet global warming science does not include this information.  Now, you may say “Well, we don’t have any way to use it”.  That’s true, but the problem is not that we have no way to use data, but rather science and politics have the hubris to pretend these temperatures do not matter.  Of course they do.  The theory cannot be “settled science” if you have no way to use data that affects the outcome.



This is a map of temperatures on one day in the United States.  These are the temperatures used to determine the reality of global warming.  Who chose where these temperature stations set?  Who determined this is the “real” temperature and the proper one to use.  There can easily be 5 degree differences, or more, over a mile’s distance.  Right now, on this day of July 23, 2020 at 10:30AM, the “official” weather station reports 79F.  My weather station says 81F.  What is the “real” temperature?  It’s a completely arbitrary choice.  There are those trying to locate stations away from cities, etc, to create a more reliable measurement, but again, we are forced to take a TINY, TINY portion of the actual temperatures recorded on the globe and use them as a sample.  If this was done in other areas of science, and done properly, the researcher would be forced to admit their sample size was too small to actually determine significance of any changes.  It’s like using 5 people for a study and extrapolating to the whole population of the planet.

These two illustrations are to get you thinking about how we measure temperatures and how very little we actually know or use of the data available on temperature.  There are satellites measuring temperatures and they cover a significant portion of the planet, giving us more information (though again, we need a computer with enough computing power to use it).  There is a complaint that satellites do not measure ground temperature and we live on the ground.  That might be an important point, but it cannot be shown until we can compare a large volume of land temperatures versus satellite.  That may never happen.

Without adequate, usable data, the theory of global warming cannot be considered “settled science”.  There are too many variables not measured and not usable to even be close to settle science.  We are at the “four elements: earth, wind, fire and water” stage in understanding climate but we’re claiming to understand the Theory of Everything.  Sadder still, we’re destroying the environment, harming humans and trying to return to the “good old days” where people died early and often all under the pretense of saving a planet we do not understand well enough to save.  Anyone up for a cancer diagnosis based on a low-resolution photo sent over a shakey internet via email?  Would you mind cutting your leg off for that or having chemo?  I certainly hope not, yet people do the equivalent daily with the belief in CAGW.

Pandemic, anyone?

I cannot seem to find time to update here.  The Covid insanity is time-consuming, trying to find groceries I need (luckily, I am a plan-ahead person with plenty of non-perishables, but milk, eggs, cheese, etc are a bit difficult.  I do have frozen cheese and eggs.  No frozen milk, though!), and avoiding the MSM drivel.  Much of the time I am struck by how the Covid insanity is so very much like AGW insanity.  There are the models, which are actually waaaayyyy further off than AGW ones (by up to 40 times, in some cases) and it’s so much faster to see how badly the models fail.  Still, people are worried about a freaking virus and figure the apocalypse of CO2 was beat out by said virus and we’re all toast.  Reality is irrelevant.  Fear is all they have.  Worse, we are being literally tormented by the supposedly caring now clearly dictators that run the states.  It’s the biggest ego and power grab I’ve ever seen and worse, people just take it.  I’m positive at this point, CO2 and Covid are absolutely not going to take us out—our own STUPIDITY AND APATHY are.  Hamsters, home watching Netflix and running the treadmill.  Fifty years ago, there would have been protests and no one would have listened.  Not now.  We have lost our humanity.  The good news is, it really doesn’t matter how hot the planet gets, we’ve screwed ourselves.

(Coming next:  Why averages and homogenization are not good for temperatures.)



Humanity ends itself


Skeptics can ignore science, too


Skeptics of global warming claim to have science on their side. Yet, I see belief in non-scientific ideas a lot with skeptics. It would seem they are guilty of that which they accuse others.

Recently, one such skeptic claimed it was the fault of those who withhold fossil fuels and modern methods from Africa that is causing the locust plague, along with anti-pesticide groups. Said skeptic brags how America has no such problems and implies if Americans and “scientific” people had their way, this problem would not exist. Another skeptic calls it a “man-made” problem. Great for the “evil AGW and greenies hate Africans” line and a complete fabrication. Reports of Africans using dishtowels to beat the locust off did not list this as a first choice in any news items I found, though this was implied by the skeptic’s writing. It was due to lack of pesticide supplies, a manufacturing problem, not lack of modern methods and because even with modern methods, there is very often no way of controlling the locust ANYWHERE. People are so arrogant in this that they will apparently deceive to make Americans and skeptics look like the “winners” and “good” guys.

There are locust swarms in South America, Africa, Pakistan, Australia and New Zealand. Unless the writer is saying all of these countries are backward hellholes without pesticides, planes to drop the pesticide, ancient farming techniques, etc, then claiming the problem is manmade is problematic and highly disingenuous. Another commenter on a blog claimed that farmprogress.com clearly stated “modern farming methods” were the savior and I was reading the MSM and hated modern farming methods (interesting that skeptics can make HUGE leaps completely irrationally to subjects not in any way related to what was actually said). I checked. The Rocky Mountain locust in North America was declared extinct in 1902 after the last one was reportedly found in a Canadian field. The locust swarms that were huge in the 1880’s across North America disappeared, in less than 30 years. I also checked. “Modern farming” was plowing with oxen or horses. There were no pesticides in mass use. There may have been some “organic” methods used, but not widely. So the claim made by farmprogress.com is horse drawn plows and no pesticides were the “modern farming” that destroyed the locust.  Seems unlikely when you actually think about it, doesn’t it?

This from High Country News, written by Jeffrey Lockwood Feb 3, 2003

“At the time of the insect’s disappearance, there were no synthetic carbon-based pesticides, no modern earth-moving equipment, not even chain saws. Settlers fought back with what tools they had, from flooding to fire to dynamite. But this hand-to-hand combat didn’t make a dent against an enemy that was billions strong. So one could only conclude that if humans had wiped out the Rocky Mountain locust, they had done so inadvertently. In other words, the most spectacular “success” in the history of economic entomology — the only complete elimination of an agricultural pest species — was a complete accident.”

Lockwood is an entomologist that did extensive research on the Rocky Mountain locust by obtaining samples of dead locust frozen in a Wyoming glacier. He’s not a news person or a politician. He’s a researcher. His article in the High Country News is worth reading.

Lockwood’s conclusions were obviously not politically or socially acceptable, in spite of mountains of evidence. Many people were not happy with his theory.  I got the same response when commenting North America had lost the locust purely by luck. It seems skeptics are equally unwilling to believe anything other than what they believe “by faith” or an “authoritative source”, just as the AGW people do. In spite of my having spent several hours, read multiple research papers and checked numerous theories of what happened to the locust, my disagreeing with the “Green People Bad” mantra meant I could not be right, I should stop depending on the MSM and get out more. This always makes me truly sad. I wish there was a side where truth mattered and there are a few bloggers and scientists who fit that bill, but the skeptics seem to have now taken to using “Green People Bad” to push the cause. It’s sad for science, it’s sad for the future.


What is the earth’s temperature?

Global warming is an increase in the amount of the sun’s energy that earth retains. This then may cause an increase in the temperature of the planet, referred to as global warming. Why “may cause”? Because the temperature of the earth is affected by many things that act to increase and reduce the amount of energy retained. It’s not just a single factor.

Temperature is the average thermal energy of a material’s molecules. Most of the time, temperature is expressed in degrees C (celsius) or F (Fahrenheit). There is also Kelvin (K), which does not use the designation of degrees because it is an absolute scale (zero K is where all molecular movement stops–a fascinating idea, I always thought*). People generally regard the measurement of temperature as what feels “hot” and “cold” rather than the thermal energy of a material.

Temperature is measured in various ways:

There were the liquid-filled tubes, originally containing mercury. Later, it was a colored liquid. I have always regarded these as most accurate since they are simple and straightforward. I really don’t have any evidence this type of thermometer is usually quite accurate except it’s simplicity and fewer moving parts seems to indicate less chance of error.

There were bi-metal thermometers, copper with steel attached to each other. The metal expand at a known rate as temperature rises and falls. Adding a couple of additional metal pieces allowed for min/max measurement without one actually having to be reading the thermometer at that exact point. Now, many thermometers are digital, based on electrical resistance. Based on my experience with various digital measuring devices, these seem the least accurate and require frequent calibration.

For AGW, there are also satellite measurements, requiring mathematic calculation to convert to temperatures. These give us a more global picture.

How many points are measured? With a satellite, you basically have full coverage of the globe. With land, you do not. The arctic and antarctic, remote areas and so forth have very, very few stations. The USA, Europe and much of North America have coverage while the southern hemisphere is much more sparse. One hears the complaint that North America, as in the US, is not global, but the stations are heavily weighted to the US. So in a sense, North America is a proxy for global, as much as those pine trees and their rings were.

Ocean temperatures have been added to global temperature calculations, but unfortunately, as is the case in so much of climate research, there exist two measuring systems which are completely and utterly different and do not correlate nor back up each other. There’s the ancient “bucket from a ship method” where temperatures were originally measured by literally dropping a bucket from a ship and taking the water temperature. Modern techniques based on this idea are better but still subject to large margins of error. Then there are the buoys a fortune was spent on but the buoys didn’t give the desired result of showing warming, so they seem to have been dropped out, another wasted fortune on climate research. (Eventually, they may prove valuable. One never knows.) All of this means there is no true measurement of “global temperatures”, just measurement where convenient or practical.

What about missing points? If one is using a grid to homogenize and average the temperatures before further averaging, you have to fill in missing points. How? I learned they were called “fudge factors” and were basically “scientific” guessing when I was in college. Now, we call it kriging and other high tech terms. With the aid of computers, we have lead ourselves to believe we can quite magically know what we do not know. Temperatures vary widely, even over short distances. To vainly believe one can estimate accurately is just hubris. Now, it might be “close enough” (like horseshoes and hand grenades “close enough”) but if the error bars are included, it looks pretty shaky. Plus, when we get to averages and anomalies, we’re talking a tenth of a degree as significant. We simply do not have the accuracy to make such claims, even though such claims are constantly made to that effect.

Temperatures used are generally min/max, homogenized and averaged. Homogenized is great for milk, but I am very unsure that it works for the betterment of temperature distributions. Ignoring extremes ignores the reality of temperature on this planet which again, varies widely even in small areas. There seem to be different methods calculating the averages and what gets homogenized. There’s also conflicting arguments about raw data showing more warming than homogenized or homogenizing creating warming. This is the problem with records, adjustments and statistics. It’s far too easy to adjust data to fit the theory. At this point, since there is only one theory that is accepted by many, manipulation in the direction of supporting warming is bound to happen, deliberate or not.

Reducing temperatures to min/max has problems. There is no way to know if the day was 70 degrees for several hours, or 50 degrees then 70 for an hour. There are many days where the min/max is only a point on the scale and not at all representative of the actual temperatures for the day. I realize we lack the capacity to calculate using the massive number of data points using all the temperatures for a day would involve, but get an accurate picture, that is necessary. After all, this is used to determine whether or not the earth is retaining more heat, the original stated goal. What we are doing now is short-cutting to help bolster a theory.

It’s very doubtful that using min/max combined is useful. Separating them would let us see where the warming is occurring more accurately. When the min and max are separated, nighttime temperatures are what seem to be going up. The Urban Heat Island effect can explain much of this, as well as the helping to explain the increase in daytime temperatures. Wind turbines can do the same thing on a windy night. AGW and wind advocates argue this does not matter and is local, but if one’s “local” increases are going into the overall average, there is a very real chance there is an effect. Satellites measure further up in the atmosphere, but still, using min and max rather than a daily average of say hourly temperatures may give a very incorrect average overall. I have read that measuring further up in the atmosphere is not useful since we don’t live there, but it’s perfectly fine for determining the energy budget. The objection is really irrelevant to the theory and only relevant to what happens with humans and ground temperatures.

There are other questions and concerns with the temperature measurments, calculations, etc that will be addressed later. This will be something of a series on global warming, an informal one albeit.

(It was said there are no negative Kelvins, but in 2013 it was determined there are negative Kelvins. Negative Kelvins are actually hot, not cold. There is no temperature below 0 Kelvin but there are negative Kelvins. It’s all very bizarre!)

Odds’n’Ends while I work on researching temperature data

Note:  If anyone has a great source for raw temperature data, please post it in the comments section.  Thanks.

From the climate genius Elizabeth Warren–

“What scares me is every time you go back to the scientists, they tell you two things,” the senator said. “It’s worse than we thought, and we have less time.”

Warren is too uneducated and unscientific to see (or too evil to admit she does) this means THE SCIENCE IS WRONG.  If you miss every time, your theory is bad and should be discarded.  I remind people of this all the time.  There is a very, very wrong belief that the theory not predicting cooling is the only proof of a bad theory.  Failure to accurately predict warming—as in “it’s worse than we thought”—is absolutely proof the theory is far from proven or useful.

The kind of climate protest we all would love:


Great photo on American Thinker—apparently from a Twitter thread showing Extinction Rebellion with their heads buried in the sand.  Back in the era of brave and courageous humans, this would have lead to having one’s posterior soundly kicked over and over to illustrate the stupidity of the creature with its head in the sand.  Sadly, I doubt we have the courage to do what is needed.  Sigh.  It does prove they know zip about climate or science.  I guess that’s something….Plus, they’re silent now.  Maybe more protests like this, with photo ops and no speech would be nice.

A word on the wildfires in Australia:

The number one problem is humans—SETTING THE FIRES.  The arson rate for these fires is astronomical.  So when someone says the fires are human caused, agree and state that jailing arsonists might help.  There are articles to the effect that Australia has always had a problem with arson-started fires.  As wide open as the land is, I have no doubt.

When corrected about using climate change without saying “anthropogenic”:

In contemporary vernacular “climate change” has come to mean “catastrophic man made…”

If that’s not your definition, then you are by definition a “denier”.

One of my past slide shows about climate change:


The New Year

I plan to look at the more technical and scientific aspects of global warming this year.  Temperature measurement will be first.  There are issues like why use min and max, averages, day versus night warming (and how wind turbines can cause artificial warming if a station is near enough—and yes, it matters—what different statistical approaches yield and why claiming the “right” statistics are applied is displaying a huge lack of understanding of statistics.   Also, scientifically, all data must be preserved and presented, not just adjusted data.  The continual use of adjusted temperatures is not science, it’s propaganda.  Results with adjustments AND unadjusted data should be presented.  Reasons for adjustments should be presented, along with numerous studies and clear explanations of why the adjustments occurred.  Only then can we have real science.

Other topics will include problems with modeling, abusive use of science, why 100% agreement is a cult and not science, responses to typical global warming advocate points, and why “it’s worse than we thought” is an admission the science is still in the very early infantile stage.  If there are other topics of interest, you can comment and I will try to address them.  

These posts take considerable research so progress may be a bite slow.  I try to look at all sides and explain why the points are correct or not.  


The official drink of the global warming crew

Myths that harm

Interesting little aside on the Anointed One, Greta.  Seems she may not have been “discovered” on the steps of the assembly but rather those “discovering” her were sent there.  Climate change may have been her way to the spotlight.  More interesting, she is incapable of answering questions extemporarily.  As long as she has a script, she’s great.  Which means she knows not of that which she speaks, but rather parrots the mantra.  A perfect little actress.

Screen Shot 2019-12-24 at 7.12.51 AM

Santa’s reindeer are female:

One more boorish, hateful female lie.   Both female and male CARIBOU (which is NOT what Santa’s reindeer looked like for decades—they were hybrid deer that had no counterpart in reality) have antlers.  Males shed theirs first.  So, if the reindeer have antlers, logically, it seems they are female.  Again, nothing people won’t believe since their IQ’s are lower than the reindeers.  One theory that explains this is like all other animals, the reindeer have not read or adhered to the ridiculous “scientists” ideas of when to shed antlers (most creatures with antlers don’t really care about “experts” and their ideas anyway.)  Thus, the well-fed, males that never breed and live in a happy all-male paradise, have no reason to drop the antlers “on time”.  However, there another great one that sounds more likely:  “Unlike horns, antlers are shed each year. … Some scientists therefore argue that Rudolph, who is universally depicted in late December with intact antlers, is female. In fact, most of the reindeer used to pull sleds are castrated males – they are easier to handle, and have antler cycles similar to those of the females”.   http://www.discoverwildlife.com

Now, the SJW’s should be doing the happy dance over that one.  The reindeer remain male and castrated, exactly as Santa and all males should be (or Santa should be female?).  Forget Christmas, Santa, and all.  Just hate everything male and fun.  It’s the SJW way of life and the Green way of life.  As the Borg say, “resistance is futile”.

Really, people, Santa died years ago in a wind turbine accident involving a blinking red light, a meet with Rudolph and a lot of fog.  So, the actual gender of the reindeer does not matter—they were killed by the Greens anyway.  Same for Santa.

A lying, evil, demonic, horrible propaganda BS commercial about polar bears that are NOT ENDANGERED but liars do not care just came on again for the tenth time today (And yes, I despise these evil liars with a passion.  I’d love to see them walk out and offer kale chips to the bear.  It’s the only way to “fix” stupid.)  My TV may not survive the season.  I turn it off because I live in a country where liars and cheats and morons are everywhere.  If you don’t understand why I am angry at the grinch for giving the gifts back, you’re hopelessly drunk on the koolaid.

PS  We gave Santa a nice burial, and the reindeer, after removing him from the wind plant.  We are not heartless.

(I have been a Grinch since I was 12, so I think it’s not going to change.  It’s what happens when you’re a realist.)

Enjoy your holidays in whatever fashion you choose!  I have no objection to you having fun.   You can have that real tree, all the holiday cheer and meat you want.  Go for it!  I’m not a progressive!!!


From my blog climate4kids.blogspot.com:

St. Greta was named “person of the year” by Time magazine.  This is honoring a child that skipped school, and scowls at everyone over something she apparently lacks the intellectual capacity to understand.  She shoves the IPCC document in questioner’s faces and yet appears unable to explain any of the science.  Greta may have read the political part of the report (or not), but I seriously doubt she can even begin to understand any of the hundreds of pages of science studies that are supposed to be the foundation of the report.  Think about this—Greta is rewarded for taking away your childhood, depriving you of your education and bullying people who do not agree with her.  Honestly, she behaves as one that hates humanity, not loves it.  Greta wants your life to be sad, empty and without hope.  She wants you to be uneducated.  She wants you bullying everyone who disagrees with you.  WHY?????  Why would any rational person wish that hell on future generations?  Why would Greta despise you so much she steals your childhood?  Why?

Being honored for bullying and trying to destroy the childhoods of others is what Time magazine is praising.  This is the insanity that the climate change propaganda politicians push.  DON’T FALL FOR IT.  

The world is not in more danger from weather/climate than it ever was.  The climate has not changed significantly in well over a century.  Humans cannot stop hurricanes or tornadoes or blizzards or heatwaves.  What humans can do is adapt and thrive.  So be part of the adaptable human race and don’t cower in fear over a truant child honored for dishonoring the human race. Learn the truth and take back/keep your lives and your futures.


Yep, the world seems quite fine!