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: )


The Latest Threat to the Planet

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.


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

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

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.

Statistical significance and climate change

I am linking to a blog post on statistical significance that may help explain why I am such a skeptic on the whole “human caused warming” claim:

Here’s an excerpt:

“Which is to say that according to my real, genuine, mathematically legitimate, scientifically fabricated scientific statistical scientific model (calculated on a computer), I was able to produce statistical significance and reject the “null” hypothesis of no cooling. Therefore there has been cooling. And since cooling is the opposite of warming, there is no more global warming. Quod ipso facto. Or something.

I was led to this result because many (many) readers alerted me to a fellow named Lord Donoughue, who asked Parliament a question which produced the answer that “the temperature rise since about 1880 is statistically significant.” Is this right?

Not according to my model. So who’s model, the Met Office’s or mine, is right?

Well, that’s the beauty of statistics. Neither model has to be right; plus, anybody can create their own.”

Read on:

The post explains very clearly, at least to me, why statistical significance may not be significant at all.  Another important excerpt:

“His model, which is frankly absurd, is to say the change in global temperatures is a straight linear combination of the change in “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature plus the change in “natural variability” of temperature plus the change in “measurement error” of temperature. (Hilariously, he claims measurement error is of the order +/- 0.03 degrees Celsius; yes, three-hundredths of a degree: I despair, I despair.)”  (Bold is mine)

Proxies cannot possibly yield the accuracy required for the claims made by climate science concerning warming.  They simply lack the degree of accuracy needed.  We really can’t even measure the accuracy except in very modern times.  Perhaps if we gave the proxy to 25 unrelated scientists and had them all give their interpretation of the proxy, it would become apparent that this is not an accurate measurement.  If you lack accurate measurements, then your conclusion cannot be said to be accurate based on those measurements.  There are too many assumptions and too much use of “estimated” and proxy data to give any kind of accurate result, except by random chance.  We simply do not have the data for these types of claims.

Scientific badger

Scientific badger