Flaws in the Global Warming world

It’s time to return to some of the major problems in the global warming arguments—that humans are “polluting the planet” with “carbon” emissions.

First, it’s not carbon, it’s carbon DIOXIDE. To call it carbon is very, very indicative of someone who does not know science. Only a non-scientist would refer to CO2 as C (which is actually several isotopes of Carbon, C12, C13 and C14). That is the first clue that the person speaking is merely parroting what they have been told and do not really understand the science at all. One suspects they could be convinced O2 is a pollutant if enough scientifically sounding pronouncement were made on it. There would be a call to not add any O2 to the air. People with O2 machines would have them confiscated. In reality, CO2 is only called a pollutant if it can be used to limit some kind of activity the greens don’t like—say burning fossil fuels, raising cattle, making concrete. It’s fine if you’re flying to a conference on global warming—it’s only bad CO2 if it’s not used to save the planet from CO2.

Second, anyone who claims to believe in Darwin and natural selection and evolution should be laughing at the insanity of the claim of global warming. In order for global warming to be true, humans have to be mightier than nature. We must be Godlike in our current status. Or, more probably, we must be aliens to this planet. Otherwise, all that we do would be part of evolution and nature. How can a creature that evolved on the planet be destroying “nature”. The creature IS nature. Can we blame elephants for knocking over trees and trying to cause global warming with deforestation? Why not? The elephant doesn’t know what it’s doing? Maybe it does. Maybe it’s trying to remove the parasite called “humans” from the planet. If humans are a parasite, they’re a naturally evolved one, so trying to remove them means claiming evolution was “wrong” in making them. This all leads to simply ludicrous proclamation about how nature evolves and somehow one of the things it caused to evolve is not part of that nature now and must be eradicated via suicide.

Third—it’s getting warmer. No, the calculated global average temperature is going up. What does that mean? It means that the weighted, gridded, adjusted and estimated numbers taken from various methods of temperature measurement are increasing as shown by the trend line. What does this mean in the real world? No one has a clue. There’s nothing that can possibly tell anyone anywhere what a weighted, gridded , adjusted and estimated average of temperature measures over the globe mean. It is a wild guess that it means things will get ugly. It’s already been shown repeatedly that it does not mean warming everywhere, that children will know what snow is, that the ocean is not swallowing up New York (thought it certainly could swallow up places where people foolishly built right on the shore of the ocean. Living right up against the ocean has resulted in lost societies and it will again. Let’s not forget the ocean has risen and receded before in history. People can move. The idea that people cannot move is just silly. They don’t want to, but nature does care what people want. Get over it.), there are actually fewer tornadoes and hurricanes, etc. There’s more news coverage and more wailing and gnashing of teeth, but things are basically as they have always been.

Fourth, correlation is not causality. The earth getting warmer at the same time we are burning oil and gas does not indicate oil and gas are the cause. There is a phenomena called the greenhouse effect involving CO2 and re-radiating of energy. It’s very easy demonstrated in a lab setting. Now, take the CO2 out of the lab, put it in a box with unknown factors and get back to me on how accurate your predictions are. Better yet, let me create the boxes with currents, varying landscapes, varying winds, varying clouds, varying albedo, etc and you let me know how that “simple” physics works out. CO2 raises temperature in a lab box and in the atmosphere, but in the atmosphere, there is no way possible to know how much. This is seen in the inability of modelers to calculate cloud cover, etc, with any realistic resolution, the continual recalculating of how much warming there is, how much ice there is, etc. We simply do NOT know what is causing the warming. There is a good chance there are multiple factors and it will be decades, if not centuries, if ever, that we understand enough of the system to predict outcomes. Then, we’re faced with the “just because we can measure it doesn’t mean we can control it” reality.

Fifth, global warming is said to be causing everything, even logically contradictory things, like rain in one place, drought in another. Global warming believers say that’s because those things are local. Yes, they are. However, if you cannot accurately predict changes locally, global, to be blunt, is irrelevant. It in no way gives us any idea of how to prepare for changes which at one time was the goal, before stopping the warming meant income redistribution and a return to pre-industrial lifestyles. Of course, warmists will say nobody in their camp says that but every single idea outside of the money redistribution, involves 19th century technology like wind and solar stretched beyond breaking with the claim it can power today’s society. No. Never. No way. It cannot. It’s physics. Wind and solar lack a continual fuels supply and their energy density is comparable to using a match to light a football stadium. That leaves living 1800’s style. There are no other options.

Nuclear is the only “low-carbon” energy source that could effectively reduce CO2 and the environmentalists have made it a giant boogeyman to be feared more than starvation, freezing or death by some very ugly diseases. We’re right back to pre-industrial, no matter how loudly the warmist doth protest. The smoke and mirrors have cleared and the truth shines through.

80946-R1-18-19A_019

Say that again, really fast, and maybe it will make sense…..Nah.

Advertisements

Just a few new thoughts

In reading through various blogs and sites this morning:
Headline: Poor nations want US to pay reparations for extreme weather (USA Today)
There you have it. Full circle to humans being the medicine men who control weather. Centuries of progress have brought us back to where we now encourage primitive societies to belief in parapsychology in order to justify demands that “richer” nations (read as “the gullible USA with trillions of dollars in debt) give up the money and hard work they have done and dole out money to nations that have not done as well. What it really comes down to is “a handout is so much easier than actually succeeding”. If there’s any doubt, you are referred to the many parasitic species in nature. (Remember, after the parasite kills the host, the parasite dies. This seems to have been forgotten.)

Speaking of parasites, global warming activists are now trying to sue in court to get their ideas in place. Having failed in virtually all other arenas, the great American past-time of suing people has entered the environmentalists tactics now. This would be proof positive that science is not involved in any way in global warming theory. Courts have virtually no science involved except by accident. See OJ Simpson trial if you have doubts. Plus the thousands of personal injury lawyers suing for every drug reaction out there, real or imagined, warned or nt, plus every stupid act of a human being blamed on someone else that has money the lawyer can get (this is not about the “victim” of the drug or the person who committed the act of stupidity). What this latest development really says is “NO SCIENCE HERE”. Move along.

Following the example of global warming scientists, I ran across this question in Retraction Watch (http://retractionwatch.com/2015/08/27/yes-many-psychology-findings-may-be-too-good-to-be-true-now-what/)
“A criticism we’ve heard of replication efforts is that it’s very difficult for a new group of people to gain the skills and tools to do the same study as well as the original authors, so a perfectly valid result may still fail to be replicated. Do you think this study addresses this criticism in any way?

The Open Science Collaborators have installed several checks and balances to tackle this problem. Studies to be replicated were matched with the replicator teams on the basis not only of interests and resources, but also of the teams’ expertise. The open data files clearly indicate the expertise of each replicator team, and the claim that a group of over 250 psychologists lacks expertise in doing these kinds of experiments is a bit of a stretch. Certainly there may be debates about certain specifics of the studies, and I expect the original researchers to point at methodological and theoretical explanations for the supposed discrepancy between the original finding and the replication (Several of the original researchers responded to the final replication report, as can be seen on the project’s OSF page). Such explanations are often ad hoc and typically ignore the role of chance (given the smallness of effects and samples sizes used in most original studies finding a significant result in one study and a non-significant result in another study may well be completely accidental), but they are to be taken seriously and perhaps studied further.
One should always report one’s methods and results in a manner that allows for independent replication; we now have many safe online locations to put supplementary information, materials, and data, and so I hope this project highlights the importance of reporting studies in a much more replicable and reproducible manner.”

Note the attempt to say the replicators are just not smart enough or skilled enough to repeat the experiment.  No, that does not fly here any more than in global warming.  If you cannot present the results of your experiment, whether it be a real data one, computer modeling or survey (the last two are really not experiments, but they are called that often), then you have not produced useful results.  If we must rely on the experimenter’s awesomeness and brilliance for verification, sorry, not science.

Scientific badger

Scientific badger

Stop! Don’t let that horse through the gate!

Climate Progress had an article still quoting the 97% consensus in spite of repeated refutations and evidence of fraud in the studies.  This is interesting considering the rest of the article seems to try to play away from the consensus idea.  Perhaps they’re just confused?  Cook and Lewandowsky’s studies have been retracted and/or proven to have committed fraud, yet the study now addressed lists these two as authors, along with a few other familiar names (D. Nuccitelli, K. Hayhoe), all part of the Global Warming intimidation and bullying squad.  Later, you’ll see why this is extremely ironic.

For the study, it seems they used outliers from the skeptic side because it was easier.  This according to Climate Progress.  Interesting, using the outliers?  I guess then if skeptics are going to check out global warming scientists and their statements, boiling oceans and complete arctic ice melting would be the ideas to go with.  I’m not sure i can find a peer-reviewed paper to that effect, though it seems after reading this paper, the real scientists here are the authors of the paper and they are way smarter than any peer-review board.  How many years have global warming advocates screamed “peer-review” and now that peer-review has been shown to be problematic, they now create their own review group who is smarter and better than any magazine editor (Reminds me of Sheldon on the “Big Bang”—”My brain is better than everybody’s”).

The stated goal was “replication with a critical eye”.  Replication is NOT done with a critical eye.  It’s taking the exact same data, statistics and repeating what the researcher did to see if you get the same result.  What is describe in the paper is “peer-review by a panel of self-annointed experts”.  Replication apprear to have had a tiny part in the paper, if it was actually addressed at all.

We show how knowledge may progress through replication of 38 papers and how ignorance may be reduced for some controversies. In addition to the replication itself, the assessment of the papers should also involve an analysis of the logical reasoning. Wrong conclusions may result from incorrect logic for several reasons, here categorised from A-D: A. One may start from a correct logical premise and execute an erroneous analysis. B. One may apply a correct analysis but start from the wrong logical premise. C. One may start from the right premise, and correctly apply the analysis, but overstate the significance of the conclusions (the analysis does not actually address the question). D. One may start from wrong logical premise and apply erroneous analysis.

Again, NOT replication, but instead self-annointed peer-review.

Climate Progress says things did not go well for the contrarian papers.  Really???  Outlier theories were chosen and somehow failed the self-annointed peer-review?  If skeptics did this, it would be called CHERRY PICKING.

sign   Here’s your sign.

Funny, the article then actually accuse the skeptics of cherry picking.  I am beginning to wonder if there is any intelligence on the global warming side.  They cherry pick and then accuse skeptics of doing it.  Worse, they say it’s wrong when skeptics do this, but a-okay when global warming cherry picks.  Can’t we just bake pies with the cherries and actually address the data that was omitted and why it should or should not have been.  On ALL sides of the issue.  Because we clearly see from this paper that cherry-picking is a favorite of the global warming crowd.

sign  Here’s your sign.

The article mentions a 4000 year cycle that was the only period that the statistical analysis worked for.  I didn’t find any looks at global warming studies to see if these were also suffering from that same defect.  It was noted that global warming studies “may” be suffering from the same problems.  Seriously, shouldn’t that have been included in the paper?  IF the goal was to make science better, I’d think you’d want to give examples on both sides.  IF.

sign  Here’s your sign.

There were studies that reportedly ignored the laws of physics and some researchers included extra parameters not based on the laws of physics. The actual paper covers some of the reasons why these analyses were incorrect.  None was particularly convincing.  Keep in mind also that the outliers were chosen because these are easier to refute, so I was surprised there wasn’t more convincing refutation.  (I do have questions on some of the papers listed.  I also have questions on a large number of global warming papers.)  Again, if you cherry-pick your authors, I’m certain one can find examples of improper physics and statistics.  We already know that from global warming science.

Statistical abuse/misuse and wrong premises and conclusions seemed to be based on what is “known” in global warming. In other words, the paper failed if it disagreed with any part of the global warming meme.  One wonders how global warming statistics and premises are apparently self-evident (which makes me wonder why they bothered to do the study at all—No, I know exactly why they did the study—propaganda.  The mainstay of global warming so-called science.)

sign  Here’s your sign.

The article concludes that “reproducibility” is essential in science, irregardless of consensus (First, the authors need to learn what “reproducibility” is).  Again, this from two or three authors known to attempt to pummel people into going along with science NO MATTER WHAT.  They have called people “deniers”(but switched to “contrarian” because that so much nicer, right?), and done everything in their power to silence ALL opposition.  Forgive me if remain skeptical about motives and sincerity here.  A self-annointed peer-review panel trying to convince us they are open-minded, sincere and scientific.

Bar the gate.  That gift from the global warming advocates is a Trojan horse.

Leapin Lizards Lilly, it’s cold!

All this talk of global warming and now we see this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/07/28/exceptional-cold-front-blankets-montana-wyoming-peaks-with-rare-july-snow/

and this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/29/the-gore-effect-continues-down-under/

On the “hot side”:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/new-york-today-ride-the-heat-wave/?_r=0

Wiki defines a heat wave as:

“A heat wave is a prolonged period of excessively hot weather”

AMS says it’s weather over 90F degrees.  In the Middle East, it’s considerably warmer that much of the time.  So many terms in climate have very, very fluid meanings.  If it’s over 85F and we need a reminder of how dangerous global warming is, then that’s a heat wave.  My question is “why do we care about the heat wave and then ignore the freezing temperatures”?  Because it doesn’t fit the global warming beliefs or because global warming is a hard sell to cold tourists visiting Jackson, Wyoming?  Probably both.  Talk about “cherry picking”.

UPDATE:

Off topic and truly frightening

From a comment section on a news site—”It is said by many scientists that we have already passed the tipping point and in roughly 100-125 years, there will be no humans left on the planet. We aren’t needed, we have nothing offer except harm, death and destruction. The earth doesn’t need us and would clearly be far better off without us. We are the most heinous and most malignant beings to ever happen to our mother.”

The self-louthing here is incredible.  How can anyone espouse a philosophy that says they are hideous parasites that would be better off dead?  I sincerely hope this person did not reproduce.  Think about this—warming belief can lead to self-hatred and despising of the human race.  Why in the world are we trying to save the planet for this?  Who in their right mind follows such a philosophy?  This is on the level of Jim Jones and his cult that killed themselves.  Be afraid.  Your future is being dictated by people who hate you and want you dead.

Earth Day 2015

My Earth Day write-up, a bit late:

I was planting seeds for plants for the garden. I got to thinking about environmentalists, etc. I now only buy seeds from one or two seed companies. Last year, I noticed a No GMO logo on many of the catalogs. This resulted in my immediately canceling any company with the logo. I sent them all letters telling them I would not buy from them because my health was dependent on a genetically modified substance. Not one company cared if their non-GMO stance would harm me. They only care that putting Non-GMO on their catalogue increased their sales. So much for the idea that these people “care”. They are as mercenary as any oil company when it comes to profits. It’s about making money, pure and simple.

If you add to this the push to eliminate meat from people’s diets, you end up with millions of dead diabetics. If we can’t synthesize insulin from e-coli bacteria and we do away with livestock, there can be no insulin. I have seen no concern whatsoever about this possibility. Environmentalists only care about the planet, not the people on it.

Then there’s the millions spent on bird-killing paltry sources of so-called renewable energy. It’s a complete lie to call wind and solar renewable. The fuel may be available on nature’s schedule, but until wind and solar convert themselves to electricity on their own, they are not renewable. Mountains of mining, manufacturing and land loss are all a part of this “free” energy. It’s a complete misrepresentation of the reality of a long ago discarded energy source.

More importantly, the money thrown away on these failures could have gone to help people in say, Haiti, who are dirt poor and have no defense against hurricanes, etc. However, global warming is about throwing people into abject poverty, not about helping the poor out of poverty. Poverty has an extremely low carbon foot print. Someone said North Korea was a model for fighting global warming–I forget who it was. I’m hoping they were kidding.

Celebrating Earth day by picking up trash, planting a tree, etc. in fine. No one wants a dirty planet and we can always use more trees (unless it’s a corporation using Costa Rican farms to plant trees and supposedly offset their carbon use–that is unacceptable). However, Earth Day should not be used to guilt children into believing a certain type of light bulb will save the earth or a certain car will destroy the planet. Unfortunately, many people use Earth Day to try and push humanity backward, to the time of disease and poverty. If we really care about people and the Earth, we will start helping those in true poverty rise out of their situation and be able to deal with life more effectively. We can help people and still respect the earth.

Watch the language

I have written on why I use “global warming” and not “climate change”.  I ran across another statement that is frequently made that makes skeptics look, to put it bluntly, stupid.  “They want us all to stop breathing”.  This was concerning the goal of an agency (NAS) saying emissions must be reduced to zero to save the planet from dangerous warming.

This statement does NOT mean they want people to stop breathing.  Breathing takes in CO2 already existing in the air and puts it right back where it came from, plus a small amount of CO2 created by the body.  However, there is no net change in the concentration of the CO2 in the carbon cycle as there is in burning fossil fuels, which are considered sequestered CO2 sources.  The proper response is:

“You mean you want to shut down all of modern society—stop all fossil fuel usage and concrete manufacture.  You want the evil fossil fuel barons who are rich and unfairly so (wait, where did Al Gore get his money?—sorry, I digress) to lose their ill-gotten gains and we will all live in squalor the way God intended.”

Of course, the speaker will then deny the charge, which can then lead to asking how else can this turn out, etc.  Many global warming advocates do not see this as needing to go to zero, but for those who do, the proper discussion is the hellhole people will end up living in if we actually were to follow their advice.

 

Another story I noted popping up was that Denmark would be “off fossil fuels” by 2020.  This may or may not be true, especially if part of their grid is covered by nations that do burn coal.  To be 100% true, Denmark would have to produce all their on energy, alone, and not tie into the grid.  That won’t happen.  Also, this cannot be applied to any other nation if:

1.  The nation is larger than Denmark.  Scale does matter.

2.  The nation has a different grid setup.  Infrastructure matters.

3.  The nation has an economy based on manufacturing, etc.

Denmark also is not “off fossil fuels” because they buy products from countries that use fossil fuels.  You are lying if you say you don’t use fossil fuels and then buy from someone who does.  It’s a very common lie and one few people ever really seem to catch.  So, Denmark will NOT be off fossil fuels by 2020 unless their grid and their economy is  100% self-contained or any trade is with another 100% renewable country.  You will NOT see this, of that I am certain.  There can also be no diesel generators, no batteries unless manufactured with ONLY renewables……As you can see, the claims are just outright lies.

Correctly put, Denmark may not be using any fossil fuels by 2020 but will continue to reap the benefits of others using them for many, many years thereafter.