A comment made on a blog got me thinking—if raising of global temperatures can cause localized cooling, in reality, it looks precisely like what we have now: weather that is averaged over 30 year intervals and called climate. Unless one looks at the statistical construct called “global average temperature”, there appears to be no difference between hypothetical raising of temperatures and current weather and climate. The weather remains the same—hot sometimes, cold sometimes.  Nothing really changes.  If we lacked computers and statistics, could we even imagine there was a difference?


Adélie penguins have roamed across Antarctica for millions of years. However, climate change has finally reached a ‘tipping point’ that could decimate their numbers, researchers have warned.   Daily Mail

If they have roamed the Antarctic for millions of years, how could humans, in less than 200 years, change the climate enough to destroy them?  In those millions of years, the ice NEVER increased or decreased?  No way.  Since we have no actual records of the events, the scientists can make up whatever they want, but logic says there is no way things stayed static the entire “millions” of years the penquins were there.  Nothing says the penquins now are the same as in the past, unless Darwin was wrong and evolution does not really occur.  There’s a habit of scientists calling things they want “stable” and anything inconvenient “unstable” with no rationale whatsoever.  This entire idea defies logic and reason.


Hansen acknowledged there may be flaws in the weather station data. “But that doesn’t mean you give up on the science, and that you can’t draw valid conclusions about the nature of Earth’s temperature change,” he asserted.

So it’s okay to have bad data and still draw a conclusion?  In what alternate reality is that true?


Hikers aren’t permitted around there because towers are DANGEROUS TO PEOPLE, especially if you don’t know what you’re doing. High altitude icing on blades can crush a car once it’s ejected off a blade, let alone a human. High voltage switch gears will fry an individual. And then there’s always the worry of copper strippers, not a few of which have cut locks and torn apart towers, and not a few of which have fried themselves trying to cut energized equipment.

(from what appeared to be a pro-wind commenter on a blog)

This does not sound environmentally friendly to me.  Seems wind turbines are dangerous.  Multiple use around the turbines is a fantasy, if this comment is correct.  One wonders why this is not widely broadcast by the wind industry……Also, the dangers listed to people would also apply to wildlife in the area.  Not benign, by any stretch.

Exploit the dead–the ends justify the means

It had to happen. All crisis and human life lost must be blamed on humans causing climate change. And here it is: Mother Jones
One Reason It May Be Harder to Find Flight 370: We Messed Up the Currents.
It’s not enough that humans are soooo powerful they messed up the atmosphere, but they messed up the oceans too. Let’s see–tgdaily had this:
A new study by the University of Pennsylvania’s Irina Marinov and Raffaele Bernardello and colleagues from McGill University has found that recent climate change may be acting to slow down one of these conveyer belts, with potentially serious consequences for the future of the planet’s climate.
Read more at http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/91136-report-deep-ocean-current-may-slow-due-to-climate-change#sheKk39GBik3pe54.99
MAY be slowing. Not is, not will, not we are sure about this. Not anything but MAY BE.

Actually, ocean current exerts a great deal of influence on climate itself. I checked out aip.org on ocean and it’s part in global warming, but ran across the statement “What was much more certain was that the oceans were rapidly warming and growing more acidic” at which point I stopped. My new rule is if the writer is so scientifically illiterate that they do not know that a ph of 8.1 is BASIC and not acid, I will have to check everything they write due to their obvious lack of scientific knowledge. Does it matter they have a PhD in physics? Actually, how do you get a PhD when you’re too scientifically illiterate to know the difference between an acid and a base? This is just making me think “peer-review” and “degrees” are meaningless. Anyone with any real knowledge of science knows 8.1 is base. A base cannot become more “acidic” if it is not acidic to start with.  It is BASE until it drops below 7.  It is so amazing to me that people who claim to be brilliant can be so very, very lacking in scientific knowledge. In my class, people with PhD’s could not correctly identify the base/alkali nature of the ocean. It’s so incredibly wrong, wrong, wrong.  And it makes me question everything they say because if they don’t understand something this simple, how can they be trusted to understand something as complex as climate?

This constant lack of correct terminology and lying about chemical properties and who knows what else may in part explain why Mother Jones is fully willing to sensationalize a downed plane and use the dead as a banner for claiming climate change is the reason we couldn’t find the plane. It’s the most obnoxious, arrogant, and evil behaviour out there. Global warming is its own worst enemy, damning humans and caring nothing about lives unless they can be exploited.

Climate change claims

  1. Worst year ever for ____________ (insert fires, flood, locust plague, whatever)I keep wondering how long the little boy can cry “wolf”.  Judging by the ZERO participants in a DC climate rally this summer, the cry is losing its effect. Sea levels rise centimeters, not meters, American heat waves declining—all problematic. Chants of “It will come” just make the speakers look foolish—like a psychic trying to overcome failed predictions.
  2. Climate change is a threat to national securityThis is one of the stupidest statements to date. The only threat to national security is the idiot making the statement. Next, gravity will be a threat to national security, then darkness, then sunshine. Incredibly stupid is the only term I can find for this.
  3. Climate change makes apples less crisp (colossal waste of money on that study), drives women into prostitution, makes politicians dumber (okay, I made that one up—and it could be true), increases crime, will necessitate mass migrations inland and vastly increases Facebook and Twitter traffic. It’s like God—omnipresent and responsible for everything.
  4. Anyone who questions AGW is a “denier” (yes, there are degrees of skepticism and one can disagree with parts of AGW, but the general usage is to apply it to anyone who even questions the science)The term is oft said to be attributed to likening skeptics to Holocaust deniers. Since the Holocaust is historical and climate change involves predicting the future, it seems misapplied. Currently, it is hurled about in the same fashion “communist” was in the McCarthy era. All it took was the word, the accusation—no evidence, no proof—to smear someone’s life. The term is currently hurled at congresspersons to try to ruin their reputations, with limited success. (This is PURE politics, no science whatsoever.) The “jokes” about tying people to tailpipes for an hour to demonstrate the toxic CO2 gas are no less threatening than in the McCarthy era threatening to turn in your neighbor as a “commie” if he did not agree with everything you wanted him to.
  5. The use of sacred texts (aka peer-reviewed journals)I am certain there will be outcries over the use of such terms. However, peer-reviewed journals are to climate science what holy books are to religion. They are the works of the god of science—nearly infallible, rarely questioned, and constantly quoted from. The journals contain the truth about the universe. All other journals and studies are without value and may constitute an affront to climate change science. It’s taken on faith that scientists who write in these journals are the only humans capable of understanding the great mysteries of the universe. Thou shalt trust no other texts in place of these.
  6. Climate change increases extreme weather.Extreme is a scary word which means the event lies far outside the normal. There was one study that looked at “extremes” and climate change done by NOAA in 2011 that was quite interesting. However, the media rarely seems interested in the distinctions between “extreme” and “just another naturally occurring storm” and blames every flood, drought, etc on climate change (see Watching the Deniers for examples). Al Gore made an entire presentation featuring disaster photos (plus said Cat 6 was being introduced for hurricanes—it is not). Scientists, if they were interested in accuracy, would have insisted this stop. At least the head of the IPCC stepped up and said no blaming tornadoes on climate change. More of this needs to be shouted out repeatedly if climate change science is to be considered to be science, not politics.
  7. It’s another record-breaking _________________. (Fill in the blank)Records fascinate people. They want to know the longest heat wave, the tallest building, the fastest car, who can eat the most hot dogs in 60 seconds. In all except the first case, there is little significance attributed to the record and people watch for the records to be broken.In climate change, however, records have huge significance—IF they go in the direction of warming (or maybe any directions, since warming can cause cooling). The longest heat wave is harbinger of doom. Hottest days in a summer of record-breaking temperatures predict a coming meltdown (or migration from the equator, minimum). There are millions, probably billions, of records in temperature, rainfall, drought. Records routinely get broken. If you limit these to the last 30 years, still, thousands are broken daily. Searching for patterns is said to allow us to predict weather. At one time, I thought this was true, too. Now I have learned that patterns can be pulled out of many sources, yet yield no useful predictions. Climate is supposed to vary—vary widely. We humans want it to have patterns—it seems nature did not. Looking for patterns can sometimes lead to predictable outcomes, but the more variables involved, the greater the chance of useless predictions. Records set in climate are just records—no magic, no crystal ball.

Watch for the marketing language—don’t let it steer your gaze from the actual data and methods. It’s not about flashy language—it’s about repeatable empirical (not model) data and results.

scientific badger

scientific badger

No, it’s not the money

Today at Think Progress (a misnomer on all accounts) we find:

“Manmade climate change is happening. One would think that with hundreds of climate-related natural disasters declared since 2011, and 97 percent of climate scientists in agreement, elected officials would follow the evidence. But a shocking number — 55 percent — of congressional Republicans refuse to accept it. Most states have at least one representative who denies climate change science. And it’s even more pronounced in Republican leadership, where 90 percent deny climate science.

It’s no coincidence that deniers are funded in large part by the fossil fuel industry, which profits off of the emissions that cause global warming. Combined, the 157 members of the climate denier caucus have taken over $50 million in dirty energy contributions over the course of their careers. The 378 other Members of Congress and Senators have only taken $33 million total.”

Read more here:


Okay, let’s look at this from a different perspective:  Al Gore sold his TV station to an OIL country, one of the evil middle east countries that control the oil the US gets and have caused millions of young men to die in unnecessary wars, according to many environmental activists.  Yet we have not seen Al Gore producing a film “Fossil Fuels Forever” and joining the ranks of the “deniers”.  If half a billion dollars doesn’t buy someone’s allegiance, how could the paltry $242,000 to house members or $699,000 to senate members?  It’s really quite obvious that money does not buy influence, don’t you think?  Only in the imagination of climate change advocates does money determine one’s beliefs about the legitimacy of science.  They just cannot admit it just might be the science that is the problem.

As the science spirals…..

Once upon a time, there was a group of scientists who discovered what they believed to be a warming of the planet, caused by humans burning fossil fuels.  This elite group of scientists spent years studying the subject, had very advanced degrees and numerous published papers.  They were the best of the best–the supreme and infallible authorities on climate change and how humans were destroying the only planet they had.

Then came the skeptics.  Those pesky people asking uncomfortable questions about the science. How dare they????  These were Authorities–one does not question authorities.  Yet skeptics did and the skeptics refused to back down and go away.

The climate scientists supporters started simply saying that NO ONE who did not have a degree in or has worked for years in climate science and published beaucoup papers was a valid authority. This would eliminate most of the skeptics and the others would not amount to a threat.  And for a while, that seemed to work.  People knew the difference between “real science” and those pesky wannabes out there questioning climate change.

All was not well in the kingdom, however.  The skeptics kept hitting on plateauing temperatures.  The climate scientists started using words like “stalling” and assuring everyone the warming would pick up again.  Some went so far as to say nature might temporarily be overwhelming what we humans were adding, though that would not continue indefinitely.

The biggest change, however, was the newly defined “authority” or perhaps “who is okay to listen to” would be a better term.  It began with a psychologist writing a paper about conspiracy theories and skeptics (which is totally irrelevant to the science and basically name-calling) which did apparently finally get published somewhere.  This allowed into the arena “social science” in place of the “hard science” of the past.  No longer did climate change scientists care if it was getting warmer, only how to make people believe it was.  Then there was the graduate student who created a new hockey stick–in his doctoral thesis.  He was hailed as vindication for Mann.  He had no “years of experience” .  His degree was not climate science.  After that, a blogger became the new hero.  This was for his “citizen” science–an internet survey to prove 97% consensus on authorities believing in climate change.  (Is it not interesting that the 97% number remains constant over years and years and whatever the approach to measuring consensus?  Almost unheard of in the world of surveys and polling, yet there it is, over and over and over.)  This blogger that clearly indicated he “was not a scientist” (thought he does have a degree in physics).  This blogger that now is associated with a university in Australia.  His qualifications seem to be “well-known” so people recognize his name and appears to agree with everything climate change tells him.  His “research” was an internet survey.

In the last couple of years, climate science has gone from “expert with advanced degree and years of experience and peer-reviewed journals” to “any guy who agrees with us and we can use to further our cause using internet surveys or whatever it takes”.  This is good news for skeptics.  No longer can the climate change advocates claim that skeptics are not “qualified”.  Many, many skeptics have degrees in science, some write blogs.  Of course they don’t agree with the climate change science, but that is the only qualification they lack.  Since it’s science we are talking about , that agreement is actually considered “unscientific”.  After all, Darwin and Einstein didn’t poll scientists to get consensus before presenting their theories. Nor did they take consensus polls after presenting the theory.  Scientists who disagreed with Einstein were not vilified (probably not so Darwin, but that, like climate change, had more to do with science eliminating God and replacing Him with science).  Only religion forbids disagreement.  So the “agreement” qualification is moot.  Virtually everything advocates objected to in skeptics has become part of the advocate side now.  No years of experience, writing on things outside climate science if they sell your cause, and blogging as a gateway to becoming a bona fide climate science researcher.

When climate change advocates start claiming lack of experience or lack of degree disqualifies skeptics, just say “Lewandowski”, “Marcott” and “Cook”.  When the discussion of the current “pause” in warming comes up, just say “nature overwhelming manmade”.  It seems climate science has become that which they criticized.  Desperate measures for desperate times, I think.

What are the watchers watching?

“Watching the deniers” website has a plethora of photos of Australia burning. As expected, there are no photos of Siberia and Alaska breaking cold records in 2011 and 2012, Russians buried in snow and freezing, etc. New news articles of this, either. In the interest of fairness, I am presenting a few of the stories the climate people left out.







Anyone notice Makiko’s name? This would be the guy who’s entire life is now spent getting his face on any television show he can. Not a scientist.



Alaska had a record cold summer 2012 after record cold 2011-2012 winter. The cold continues this winter. In Russia, the cold continues with hundreds freezing to death. One article noted the number of dead would be reported weekly instead of daily. It was unclear if this was a positive development.

Problems with claims of the watchers:

First, the use of photos showing fires, etc is a MARKETING tactic. No scientist uses photos in place of actual data. Any time you see photos—as with al Gore (the tax and enviro sell out championed by climate change people) it’s not about science, it’s about marketing.

Second failure to include new record lows show a fundamental lack of knowledge—or a deliberate lie—on the part of the speaker. Climate change is postulated on changes in the Global Mean Temperature. How do we calculate this? We add together all the data values from our thermometers and divide by the number of stations. We can look at average highs, average lows, etc. For the moment, we will ignore “corrections” that are usually applied.

Say in 2012 Australia’s new high temperature was +2 degrees over the previous record. Then let’s assume Alaska’s new “high” temperature was -2 degrees over the previous record. When calculating the mean, the +2 cancels out the -2. Colder temperatures count and leaving them out is unacceptable.

Averages are fascinating statistics. Consider the following example of average temperatures (which are made up for this example):

Year one Year two Year three Year four Year five
Jan 25 15 30 0 35
Mar 55 50 60 65 40
July 90 100 105 105 85
Sept 70 75 55 70 80
Average 60 60 60 60 60

Scan 5

In all cases, the average is 60 degrees. Year one seems pretty “normal”. Years two through four are going to be called “hot”. Year three may break a previous temperature high. Year four may set a record low. These graphs show weather/climate are always changing. Which graph represents “extreme” weather?

Another sign of the lack of science in climate change is the use of terms like “horrendous” “catastrophic” “megastorm” and so forth. Wait—why is that not science? Because these terms lack a precise meaning—yesterdays’ storm can be tomorrow’s megastorm if the news machine needs a crisis. There is no standardized definition of these terms which is not acceptable in science. The terms are great for SyFy movies and the like—or at least SyFy seems to love such titles, but that’s about it. The terms are also useful if you are trying to frighten/intimidate people into believing climate change is a crisis.

How would a scientist report the temperatures in Australia? (Again, using made up numbers here)

Jan 1                            Jan 2                               Jan 3                                   Jan 4

41 degrees                 42 degrees                  40 degrees                            41 degrees

breaks record

If asked what Jan 2 setting a new record means, the scientist would answer: Based on the data presented, Jan 2 had a temperature higher than any recorded in the past for that day.

If asked about what breaking multiple records or all previous records, the scientist would say: Based on available data, the temperature exceeded all past recorded temperatures.

If pushed to give a “better” answer in response to the question about record-breaking, the scientist replies: This is all we know—it’s hotter today than it has been in the past.”

Should the questioner persist, it should be pointed out that the temperature record set in 1960 broke an all-time high as well. What did that mean? That it was hot. Nothing more.

Adding an additional color to the temperature map just means our current classification system needed revised. There is no magic to the colored charts used to show temperatures. Generally, the charts replace data because data is boring and pretty colors on maps are interesting.

The watchers have no proof in their latest posting that the world is getting hotter and people did it–science is no where to be found.