Here we go again

Real Science has a post showing a newspaper from 1934 asking if the Arctic is melting and the Statue of Liberty will be partially submerged, followed by a headline from March 2016 with a similar story.

There’s an even more similar claim here:

It’s just a constant recycling of claims of impending doom.  The cartoons of people who stood on the sidewalk with signs saying “The End is Near” are being crowded out by the “scientists” of doom, global warming soothsayers.

For all our technology, we are just as gullible as those who sacrificed virgins to their gods in the hopes of getting rain, bought magic elixirs from traveling salesmen and bought plans for perpetual motion machines.  Human beings seem hopelessly mired in wishful thinking and what they wish for the most is their own demise, it seems.  And there’s always someone there to sell them the plans.

Call me when it’s safe out there.

How to not convince a person global warming is real

5 Ways To Talk With Conservatives About Climate Change

Can’t do that with progressives, talk that is. Many merely scream and yell and call people deniers (see the ending of this piece that is supposed to be conciliatory). These are some suggestions I found on for talking to conservatives about global warming, which apparently they think will work,and my responses in red:

1. Climate change is real and it’s happening now. It’s happening all over the world and the poorest people are the ones who are suffering the most. If Conservatives, especially those of the religious persuasion, truly care for their neighbors, climate change should be high on their list of priorities.

First, they are suggesting… appeal to religion. Not science, but religion. Plus they suggest claiming climate change is already happening. (Of course it is—it always has. Tell us something we don’t know. Same for not using science in the argument. This is not going to win converts unless the person is easily “guilted” into a certain behaviour. And, again, this is not science. The actual science says the effects are not being felt and most of what is claimed is a desperate, last-ditch effort to preserve the “end-of-the-world” meme in spite of all evidence to the contrary.)

2. There are many causes that Conservatives can support, but caring for the environment envelops three of the key foundational tenants of this movement: trans-generational loyalty, the need for home, and the priority of local economy.

Try bringing in trans-generational loyalty (that term alone will alienate most conservatives since it’s progressive speak), the need for home (how that is supposed to work, I have no idea), and the priority of local economy (also a losing idea—local is good only in specific cases, not one-size-fits-all). Not a convincing argument.

3. Even though most Conservatives believe in God as the omnipotent designer of the Earth, it is important to note that as humans, we have the power to make our own choices. Believing in climate change isn’t an insult to God, it’s an acknowledgment of responsibility!

Believing in global warming is not an insult to God? Seriously, we just elevated ourselves to God’s level by saying we control the climate. A quick study of religion may be in order before anything in this area is tried again.

4. By replacing our energy sources with clean energy, we can reduce the human impact of climate change and therefore reduce the burden on the environment. Being good stewards of the Earth is a motto taught in Sunday School, and it doesn’t end when you walk out the doors of the church.

Now we get replacing our energy with clean energy as a suggestion. IF we had any, we would. The bird killing, bat-chomping environmental disasters called wind turbines and solar panels are NOT clean by anyone’s estimation, except in the minds of uninformed climate change believers. Land is destroyed, radioactivity is dumped in valleys in China, mines and chemicals are involved. Massive fossil fuel usage in transportation, installation, and then energy only when the sun shines or the wind blows. Thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines (the very ones environmentalist opposed in the 70’s). That is NOT a clean energy source.

5. And finally, teach your friends and family about conserving the environment. Start small with your children, capitalizing on their curiosity about the world around them. Moms Clean Air Force provides all the important resources to help you arm yourself with the facts and teach your family to stand up to skeptics and climate change deniers!

The piece suggests “Moms Clean Air Force” page. (I’ve written on the completely unscientific nature of Moms—this will not help the case for global warming believers trying to appeal to a rational listener.

Note, too, that they insult the very people they are trying to convince by calling them “deniers”, when there is NO science in what these individuals are writing. Perhaps if they actually looked at the science and could actually understand it, they would realize they are the ones going against science.

All in all, the suggestions are emotional appeals to try and get people to mindlessly agree with the global warming camp. Public flogging of those who dare to disagree might be more effective and would certainly be more honest. It’s all emotional blackmail, devoid of science.  Is anyone surprised?


(Read more:

Snow jobs

Two snow jobs for the week:

The “Gore effect” strikes again. Last week, Gore had to drive into Harvard due to a heavy spring snow storm on the East Coast cancelling flights. He could make a lot more money and actually perform a valuable service as “Al the Snowmaker”. Need more snow? Invite Al and you’re sure to get some! Anyway, it’s as scientific as global warming and at least serves a truly useful purpose.

RICO and global warming questioners:

The use of the RICO act against global warming questioners is an admission that the global warming is not a persuasive argument and that it can only be sold by force. This is also an admission that it is not science. Science is sold by reason and facts, not lawsuits. Admittedly, this probably started with teaching evolution and lawsuits about that. People run to court when their case is very, very weak and they hope to con a judge or jury into feeling sorry for them and ruling against the stronger argument. Sadly, that can be a “winning” strategy, in the same way dropping a nuclear weapon can end a neighborhood dispute. It’s completely inappropriate, underhanded and an admission of lying or deception on the part of the one bringing the RICO act. It’s winning at any cost.  IF we had a scientifically literate society and not a bunch of sheep bleating their allegience to whomever is the scariest and meanest and nastiest person around, this would not happen. But humans tend to be sheep and are lead to the slaughter over and over, with merely a word or a gesture. No force needed. Just don’t tell me you “care” about the planet and your kid’s future. If you did, you wouldn’t be obediently walking into the slaughter pen. (Note: People are not pigs—pigs fight back. Calling men and policemen pigs is actually a very high complement.)

The use of the RICO act is also proof that the goal here is not to stop the companies and groups from existing, but rather to tax them just as was done with cigarettes. In spite of cigarettes being “a horribly dangerous product”, it was never outlawed. The government continues to allow the sale of a killer product to the public. Hollywood continues to portray smoking as acceptable. It was never about harm, but rather about money. No one wants to shut down global warming questioners, they want to tax the daylights out them. If these groups turn over their donor lists, the government can punitively tax the donors (except the ones that give to the Democratic Party, of course) and increase revenue. The organization itself is not the target—the donors and corporations are. As for silencing global warming critics, the vast majority work for free or donations from readers, so there’s nothing to tax there. The government is just hoping the saber rattling will scare critics into hiding or make them irrelevent.

This may be a poor time to try this—oil and gas are laying off and shutting down along with coal. The government has effectively strangled the golden goose for now. Trying to squeeze a few more eggs out is a futile effort. However, since there is NO alternative to oil and gas (try building a turbine from scratch with NO oil or gas or coal), there’s a chance some income can be had. Enough to keep the government going until the next target can be acquired.

“Nearly 150 academics have signed on to the cause, including George Woodwell, founder and director emeritus of Woods Hole Research Center; James Powell, former president of the science museums of Los Angeles and of the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia; and some prominent climate researchers, like James Hansen of NASA, Michael Mann of Penn State University, and Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. (From   April 6, 2016)

If ever there was list of RICO type behaviours, there it is. So-called “independent” scientists who receive millions, if not billions, from the government to continue the global warming mantra at all costs, including possible data manipulation (interesting that the past cools, the present warms and that just happens to be the way these folks want the data to go). Talk about incentive to keep up the tale and do everything possible to silence those who see your gravy train for what it is. Oil and gas should be so lucky as to have an endless government blank check.


The Gore Effect

What to do when good religion goes bad

This is not a science post, but rather address the unholy alliance of the Pope and global warming believers*

Should Catholics support their church with the Pope spewing lies about climate change? Morally, that would be monetarily supporting evil. So no, you should not be donating to a church that is spreading lies and misinformation. If the Pope wants to redistribute money forcibly, which is what global warming advocates are demanding, there is no reason to support this action, unless you believe God wants money taken from those who work and produce and given to those who have not yet succeeded. I know of no Biblical statement to that effect. It was said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s, but if the church joins forces with Caesar (which now the case), there is no admonition about double-dipping for funds. Until the church separates itself from Caesar, no more donations should be made. God is not the government and the government should not be elevated to Godhood. That is morally wrong, no matter who tries to convince you of it.

Assuming one wishes to believe the Pope on global warming, the remainder of the encyclical teaches abortion is wrong, restricts contraception, and denounces homosexuality. So, to avoid “cherry picking”, global warming followers are expected to believe all parts of their hero’s encyclical.  To do otherwise would be wrong and hypocritical. That or lay off the claims of fossil fuel conspiracies, belief in pseudoscience, etc as reasons to dismiss skeptics.  If belief in “conspiracies” and pseudoscience are grounds to doubt skeptics, then alliance with religion should be grounds to doubt global warming believers.
On the flip side, if we return to extreme poverty, living in villages and hunting food, that in and of itself is a form of population control. Women had many children but only a few survived to adulthood. This may be a way of limiting population by government decree without ever revealing the actual intention. One could then say that no contraception was used and that God’s will was the child not grow up. It’s an odd argument, but it could actually yield a solution that satisfies both the Pope and the environmentalists.  A win-win for politics, not so much for religion and a complete loss for science.

*I am using global warming believers since AP is now calling skeptics “doubters”.  Believers are the opposite of doubters.

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 (
“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

Translating AGW claims

This post is to explain in clear language what the AGW crowd is saying.  I will start with one very common example and add more over time.

What it really means:

Today, at the Guardian, we find a book on how the science of global warming was hijacked by corporate minions. The actual translation of this is “Global warming science is very unpersuasive and cannot actually defend itself against those who point out severe flaws in the data and methodology. However, since the politicians and scientists cannot admit this, blame will be shifted to corporations, who, by the way, are apparently far smarter and more persuasive than the global warming advocates. Even the spokespeople for global warming were so poor at conveying the need for action that they failed monumentally.”


August 9, 2015 from a comment on a skeptic blog:

“go look it up or make the point you want to make so I can respond to that”  (After being asked by a commenter if the person knew about plate techtonics over the past 20,000 years)

This often used by true believers in AGW who don’t understand the science but don’t want to look foolish.  When asked a question they cannot answer, they simply bluster up like a rooster and try to intimidate.  What they are really saying is:

“I have no idea what you’re talking about and I can’t look up the proper answer in the warmist manual without further information.  I, left to my own devices, would never be able to answer your question.”

August 19 2015 from a Kevin Trenbreth paper:

“The increasing gap between model expectations and observed temperatures provides further grounds for concluding that there has been a hiatus.”

Translation:  Our models are reality and the fact that the actual temperatures are not doing what our models say will happen does not mean our models are wrong.  It’s the temperatures in the real world that are the problem.  Our models know the future and the future will be HOT.

So there you have it.  Global warming is a sure thing because the models say it is and it does not matter what the actual real world is doing.  The real world temperatures will fall in line with those models.  Some day.  Some day in the future.  Some day in the future but we’re not sure when.  But it will happen.

August 31, 2015 from a comment in the online version of the Albany Herald:

“Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.”

Translation: I am a warmist and a true conspiracy believer. I see conspiracies anywhere and everywhere there is a challenge to my thinking. It’s interesting to note that this comment was in response to a parody of global warming–meaning the commenter was not even bright enough to realize he is for parodies of things he disagrees with but no one can parody anything said person believes in.  Global warming is godlike and cannot be mocked.

The website is quite depressing, though that is not unusual among such parody websites run by warmists.  Most are reminiscent of a toddler coloring on a wall with a crayon.  His comment policy is “If your comment is not concise, rational and relevant or is redundant or repetitious it will not appear.”  This from a guy who uses only a first name and is criticizing Watts for misinformation and being boring?  Again, you have to realize that the website is not going to allow any discussion or disagreement.  Discussion and disagreement are boring, you know.  And probably a threat to one’s faith in global warming.  Truly sad to be so seeped in the faith, especially since that is completely and utterly unscientific.

Scientific badger

Scientific badger

The New Year

It’s a new year and I thought I’d try to be a bit more organized and look at climate and global warming from several different angles. This may or may not continue depending on my success in creating ideas for posts.

Most scientifically and mathematically illiterate headline I have found to date:

“We may never have another coldest year in history”
(From Salon, Nov 29, 2014)

It is impossible not to have a coldest year. Coldest is a superlative–it is the lowest temperature recorded. It matters not if it’s -20F or 75F. If it’s the coldest (IE lowest) number, it is by definition the coldest. Mathematically, again, the lowest temperature is coldest and the highest is hottest. You see hottest used all the time to describe the temperature in Antarctica. It is the hottest or warmest year ever there. It seems the media understands hottest just fine. Why they can’t grasp coldest is beyond me, but headlines like this one should immediately alert people to the fact that this writer is completely clueless. You’re not going to find anything resembling science written by him/her, except by accident.

I ran into the argument from a skeptic that if you don’t use your “real” name, it’s okay to ignore you. The logic seems to be that if you don’t care enough to sign your name, why should a reader care what you wrote? Interesting. I thought skepticism was science, not authorities, who is and isn’t using their real name, etc. I fail to see why it’s okay for a skeptic to dismiss information because it was written by an anonymous person but it’s wrong for a global warming advocate to dismiss evidence not written by a professional climate scientist in a peer-reviewed journal. The rule of science says the evidence count. Shutting out evidence for whatever reason is extremely unscientific on either side.

Claims of the “hottest year ever” are out once again. We return to the land versus satellite dilemma. In most sciences, more data points from a more uniform distribution are considered better than fewer. That does not seem to be the case with global warming. Global warming reports that form the basis of news headlines are based on land temperatures, which reportedly show warming. So why not use satellite? The only reason I can find is that land gives the answer some individuals and institutions seem to want.

While I was working on this, Gavin Schmidt admitted to the Daily Mail that 2014 may NOT have been the hottest. It was impossible to decide between three years that were statistically the same. The headline read: “Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record… but we’re only 38% sure we were right” So there is higher than 50-50 chance 2014 was not the warmest year, yet NASA told the media it was the hottest year. Lying does little to make people more believing of the global warming scientists.


Another dilemma in the global warming saga–is there a pause or not? At first, a pause was denied. Then all kinds of reasons for the pause were advanced. Currently, it’s a toss up on whether the global warming advocates will agree there is a pause or loudly proclaim there is not. Which means “follow the experts” is useless in this case. I am now referring to this as a “leveling” or a “flattening” of temperatures, which gives no clue as to whether the temperatures will stay the same, go up or go down. That reflects the truth of what we know now.

There are cries from many of the global warming camps that “something must be done” before it’s too late. If reports of “Hottest Year Ever” contradict each other and there’s no agreement on whether or not the temperature increase has flattened or stopped, there is no way, scientifically speaking, for us to know what to do. The answers we are hearing now are pure politics.

Scientific badger

Scientific badger

And the “winner” is…..

There are members of the Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry who are calling on the media not call skeptics “skeptics”, but rather “deniers”. One can only think they are angry that skeptics of climate change have done so well while the Skeptical Inquiry folks maybe not so much so. Signers of the petition include Bill Nye, the comedian/actor guy and James Randi, the “appeal to authority” champion and religion/paranormal hater. There are also science writers, journalists, and a film producer. Remember when attacks were constantly made on genuine scientists who signed petitions saying they disagreed with global warming being a huge problem? Now, as seen with J. Cook, anyone can chime in as long as they are on the global warming side. New criteria–you’re only a scientist if WE say so. It’s interesting that skepticism is now defined by dogma and the threat of “if you’re not with us, you’re denying science” when at one time it was just asking questions of science and for data and proof. It appears those days are long gone as far as these individuals are concerned. (One also wonders if this is in part because those who tore apart pseudoscience are very uncomfortable having the same skeptical eye turned on their beliefs.)

This is really not all that surprising. The unskeptical “Skeptical Science” has been out there for years. Psychologically, it seems to be a case of “if you can’t convince them with facts (perhaps because you have so few), then club them with nasty names and shrieking. “Plus, you can claim the name “skeptic” is taken and “denier” is the only remaining name for those not following the designated truths.

I dropped reading many of the conventional skeptic sites when it became apparent that much of what they believed or did not believe was based on appeal to authority, or a hatred of religion and paranormal phenomena. (Note: Religion cannot be proven by science and trying to dissect it with science shows a lack of understanding of both science and religion.) So-called “skeptics” seem to follow the appeal to authority in part because many lack the science education that would let them form their own questions and theories and in part because it’s a CYA move, allowing them to blame scientists for any failed theory. Since they are not scientists, they cannot be held responsible for advocating what turns out to actually be pseudoscience or very bad science.

There’s a question of what the “deniers” are denying. If the scientists are skeptical, are the deniers denying that the scientists are skeptical? What parts of science specifically are they denying? Are they simply questioning if the theory is sufficiently developed to keep pouring billions into measures that do not seem effective and actually are very damaging to the environment? Are they denying that money and politics are the way to “solve” the “problem” as presented–is it really scientific to believe money, socialism and a return to pre-industrial lives are the only possible solution to the dilemma?

The entire proposal bodes very badly for science. Theory of global warming appears to be crumbling due to that lack of statistically significant warming in RSS temperature measurements, there are studies that show the ocean may not be warming as much as believed and people snowed under with 8 feet of snow are not very willing to believe “warming causes cooling”. The science is not convincing to many, including some who work in the field and associated fields and many who have examined the science and found it lacking. Rather than answer questions about the science, the “scientists” (in quotes because no real scientist would ever behave this way) call names, and refuse to address the problem. Those who do try to answer often give explanations that are lacking in believability and science to back them up. Too many of the activists in the field have made wild predictions and statements (ice-free arctic by “X” date, boiling oceans, etc) and these were allowed to stand. Sadly, at this point, the science has basically lost its credibility. All that’s left is name-hoarding, ad hominem attacks and trying to suppress opinions.

Another disturbing trend is trying to “market” the science. That seems to fall under the “if you can’t win them with facts (because you lack such things), dazzle them with BS” or terrify them with promises of a horrible, hot, wet future if they don’t go along with your “solutions”. There’s even an attempt to figure out a way to market to specific political preferences by rewording the solutions to disguise the real intent. Marketing science is truly a desperate attempt at replacing facts and data with BS and fear. Climate science has dragged science into tap dancing, threatening and smearing tactics in an effort to “win” with their theory. They simply cannot admit that the theory may be flawed and needs further research to explain the lack of warming, the natural variations and the failed predictions. Climate science is now playing the role the Church did in suppressing and vilifying Galileo, something science criticized religion for doing. The hypocrisy just screams out at you: “It’s not about science, it’s about winning”.

Religion and climate change

On the Greenie watch blog, this story appeared:

Curious, I checked Hurricane Sandy and Hurricane Katrina:

I learned two things:  (1)Politics and religion can be anything but caring and compassionate and (2) all the research into climate change is a waste.  Researchers need to be sitting in church to find out what God is up to this week.

It fascinates me that both sides will often endorse theories on God when it agrees with their viewpoint.  I have read several instances where churches endorsing climate change are hailed as visionary by the climate change advocates.  The exact same individuals celebrating this climate endorsement condemn views from the church on homosexuality.  One supposes you could claim this results due to removal of outlying data points, but that would be stretch.

All of this invoking of “God is on our side” moves the debate to the religious arena, which I find advocates embrace when it’s to their benefit, pulling the discussion out of science.  One of the criticisms of climate change is the religious nature of their beliefs–they often seem to take ideology from their “supreme beings” (peer-reviewed researchers) and not question any of it.  This leads to claims that climate change is faith based.  I cannot see how claiming “God is on our side” can do anything other than further reinforce questioner’s beliefs that climate change is about winning the public over, not about actual scientific data.

Much like the claims of conspiracy ideation on the part of questioners,  there exists a real possibility of further claims of religious ideation on the part of climate change advocates if articles invoking God’s approval continue to pop up.  Perhaps more damaging is the fact that advocates may be willing to grab onto anyone who supports their cause, with or without reason.  This further weakens their claims of science being reason for believing in climate change.

(Note:  I am not saying the using “God is on our side” means climate change is wrong.   The validity of the climate change theory is based entirely on the data.  However, climate change advocates often try to say/imply that people who believe in conspiracies and are skeptics proves skeptics are wrong because of the conspiracy beliefs.  The same tainting of the argument can certainly be achieved using “God is on our side” and climate change advocates.)

Additional note:  Someone asked me if the relief effort is carbon neutral?  My guess is no, it’s not.  Did all the believers in climate change turn off their lights and park their SUV’s to compensate for the fuel used in delivering supplies using multiple Osprey helicopters?  Seems unlikely.  Will God then send another hurricane to punish us for using too much fossil fuel in the relief effort?  Who knows?


Scientific badger