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

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

From the climate genius Elizabeth Warren–

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

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

The kind of climate protest we all would love:

216604_5_

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

A word on the wildfires in Australia:

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

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

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

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

One of my past slide shows about climate change:

 

Welcome to clueless

From the “clueless comparisons” department:

“The stone age ended not because we ran out of stones. The same with oil and gas.”  quote from Forbes

That is one of the STUPIDEST, MOST UNEDUCATED, IDIOTIC statement ever made.  It’s equivalent to “we did not starve because we ran out of food, we ran out of cooking utensils”.  And this from Forbes?????  Americans have become drooling fools, knuckle dragging cavemen.  We didn’t run out of the Stone Age, the troglodytes just wear suits now.

Condensation—maybe good for soups, bad for science

Condensing the IPCC report down to a “Summary for Policymakers” has the same result as taking the Dune trilogy (Frank Herbert) and making a two-hour movie.  It destroys the complexity of the input and the output is unusable (or in the case of “Dune”, unwatchable).  

In the news:

Hottest June ever in Paris.  No mention in most articles of the COLDEST June in much of the USA and elsewhere.  Of course not, because FACTS don’t matter, spin does.  If ever you wonder if climate “science” is real science, this is proof it is NOT.  When you only present facts favorable to your side, it’s politics or religion, not science.  So next time someone brings up climate change, just point out the complete hypocrisy of the “scientists” and media in presenting only data favorable to them.  It’s not science.

Concerning the continued screeching about one heat wave, etc:

I find it fascinating that ONE heat wave or other hot event can so shift an average, which is what climate is, enough to declare “climate change”.  You take 6,000 red balls, throw in a blue one, and suddenly, the balls all turn purple.  Fascinating, absolutely fascinating.

Observation:

Weather forecasting is taking on the characteristics of climate “science”.  We start out the week with a forecast in the 80’s or 90’s for the end of the week or the whole week.  Then, two or three days out, the temperature forecast suddenly drops and then goes back up at the end of that seven or ten day period.  The pattern is quite clear.  I’ve monitored it at least six months and the pattern is holding.  Last week, 90’s were forecast for all of this week.  Now we are down to the low 80’s forecast for the three days after today, but still 90’s at the end of the week.  I do believe the contamination of science by “climate science” is spreading like a nasty disease.  It may be eventually fatal to science.

ALASKA HEATWAVE.  WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE, DIE, DIE. 

Per CBS and other crazy people standing on the street corner in sackcloth with a sign “The End is Near”. 

Again, the fools in the so-called media cannot tell the difference between weather and climate.  Yet you never see Michael Mann or any so-called climate “scientist” or media person yelling at the media like warmists “yell” skeptics for exactly the same thing.  As far as I can tell, it’s just wonder to have confused, inaccurate climate scientists, but skeptics better not get anything wrong.  Really?  So climate scientists and the media can be stupid, wrong and lie????  What a wonder recommendation for fake science.

Desperation to preserve the non-preservable

On WUWT, there was an article on solar cells and increasing efficiency.  My response is “yawn”.  It may be unlimited fuel, but we have had the sun for light since time eternal (or the Big Bang or whatever).  Yet the sale of and demand for light bulbs never decreases.  The stupidity of solar (energy—“Energy from Weather”) is quite clear when you look at it that way.  It’s a FAIL.

 

Call me when it’s safe out there.

It’s here!

Today on NOTALOTOFPEOPLEKNOWTHAT:

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: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/08/05/dog-made-global-warming/ )

scan0077

The Latest Threat to the Planet

Bring on the psychics

“a) No it’s not and b) you can’t make projections from long term past data. If you want to simulate what the future will do you have to build a model.”
From the comment section of the Daily Mail

There’s many insults about how skeptics don’t understand climate science. Here we have guy that apparently thinks you contact a psychic and get a model for climate change. Why a psychic? Well, you can’t make projections from long-term past data (I thought long-term made prediction easier. That’s why weather forecasts are hit and miss but climate science is gospel and absolutely true) and you can’t use short-term data (try mentioning the leveling of temperatures over the last 20 years and there will be no doubt of this). So we can’t use long-term data and we can’t use short-term data which means we can’t use data at all. That only leaves a psychic. A model might be able to be created using no data, though every time a skeptic suggests it, they are shredded for the notion, but such a method is really questionable, certainly not verifiable and not science. We see here a global warming advocate arguing that there is no science in global warming and believing it helps his argument. It does if you’re on the skeptic side.

Another story has come up about polar bears facing extinction in 10 years. Again, the climate crew must be employing a psychic for these prediction. Real polar bear scientists and those living in the North all say polar bears are doing fine–increasing in number actually. However, it seems those computer models say polar bears are going to be wiped out if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels. Truly, I think we should start substituting “psychic” for “computer model” since the models bear no resemblance to reality in any way. Predictions have been consistently wrong for decades. Psychics can get by with a record like that, but science cannot. If the predictions fail over and over, the model is wrong. It is not reality that is wrong, as the global warming advocates would have you believe.

Did someone request a psychic?

Did someone request a psychic?