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’s missing?

A reader alerted me to the absence of information on WtD concerning the recent election.   It’s true–the last entry was Sept. 5 and it was about how Melbourne was so eco-friendly and proved that only “nutters” don’t get this whole “save the planet” thing.  Looks like a majority of Australia either does get what shams global warming and sustainability marketing and political movements are or a majority  of the continent is comprised of “nutters”.  Can we look forward to a citizen science paper on how a very large portion of the Australian population has come to view Carbon Tax as a  sham and threw out the advocates, or would that simply shine the spotlight on the sham?

Abbot won, the carbon tax seems on it’s way out and I just hope Americans come to their senses in 2014 and fill the house and senate with all the “nutters” here.  It’s time to put an end to this whole sham.

Note:  I am not in favor of dirty water, dirty air, etc.  That is the typical response to people who oppose the “green” agenda.  I want the best use of the resources we have and for things to be done in as clean a way as possible.  I want things reused where possible.  What I don’t want is politicians making these decisions.  People will decide what they want–and cleaner, better manufacturing methods, etc are going to sell.  They already do.  I have a lot of faith in people making the right decisions as a group–I have zero faith in many of our politicians making the right decisions at this point.

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.

Marketing 101

Skeptical Science sent out an email looking for 25 skeptical blogs to participate in a survey of 25 skeptical and 25 believer blogs. The survey concerns “consensus” and involves the use of research abstracts. From an email posted on WUWT: 

As one of the more highly trafficked climate blogs on the web, I’m seeking your assistance in conducting a crowd-sourced online survey of peer-reviewed climate research. I have compiled a database of around 12,000 papers listed in the ‘Web Of Science’ between 1991 to 2011 matching the topic ‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’. I am now inviting readers from a diverse range of climate blogs to peruse the abstracts of these climate papers with the purpose of estimating the level of consensus in the literature regarding the proposition that humans are causing global warming. If you’re interested in having your readers participate in this survey, please post the following link to the survey:

(no link posted)

The survey involves rating 10 randomly selected abstracts and is expected to take 15 minutes. Participants may sign up to receive the final results of the survey (de-individuated so no individual’s data will be published). No other personal information is required (and email is optional). Participants may elect to discontinue the survey at any point and results are only recorded if the survey is completed. Participant ratings are confidential and all data will be de-individuated in the final results so no individual ratings will be published.

You can also read these blogs for additional comments:

Two questions:

  1. Why survey bloggers and readers about consensus on AGW using technical abstracts?
  2. Why are abstracts from what has always been described as very technical science being used?

First, SkS has not shown interest in what readers of skeptical blogs think in the past. Generally, skeptics and their blogs are characterized as unscientific individuals with some kind of agenda involving fossil fuels and/or shadow governments. NOW he cares?

It has been repeated over and over and over that laymen cannot understand the complexity of climate science. Yet the study involved reading and ranking abstracts from professional journals. (True, it seems the survey just asks if the survey is neural, pro or against AGW, but that’s still a pretty big judgement call for science so reportedly complex and impossible to understand outside the field.)

Let me get this straight: SkS is surveying unscientific, agenda-driven skeptics using science documents written by individuals with advanced degrees and years of research in the field to determine “consensus” in the literature.

This says “marketing” all over it. How can scientists phrase their abstracts to slant public opinion in their favor (in case those pesky skeptics keep encouraging readers to check the research)?

No climate science here. Just how to sell your product more effectively……


Additional ideas

Today’s posting is links to articles I have found interesting:

NEW PAPER: ARCTIC WAS UP TO 3.8°C WARMER ~3000 YEARS AGO A paper published on 4 March in Quaternary Science Reviews reconstructs Arctic temperatures in Kamchatka, USSR over the past 4,500 years and finds the highest reconstructed temperatures were about 3.8°C warmer than modern temperatures. The authors find ”the highest reconstructed temperature reaching 16.8 °C between 3700 and 2800 years before the present,” about 3.8°C above “modern temperatures (13 °C).”


For a further look at the use of the term “denier”, an older post from Roger Pielke Jr.’s blog:

One more:

Changing sun, changing climate by Bob Carter, Willie Soon & William Briggs March 8, 2013 Scientists have been studying solar influences on the climate for more than 5000 years.Chinese imperial astronomers kept detailed sunspot records, and noticed that more sunspots meant warmer weather. In 1801, celebrated astronomer William Herschel, the first to observe Uranus, noted that when there were fewer spots the price of wheat soared. He surmised that less “light and heat” from the sun resulted in reduced harvests.

Six Aspects of Climate Belief

Six Aspects of Climate Belief  (in response to Six Aspects of Denial on “whatchingthedeniers”)

1.  Never question the science.  Just state you and everyone who is not a climate science cannot understand.  This then becomes “taking it on faith” or believing in something you cannot prove or do not understand because certain people deemed smarter than you said it’s true.  Stick with the “consensus” line and hope the listener will be bullied into going along.  Intimidation is what science is about.

2.  Maintain blind faith in the motives and integrity of climate scientists.  This appears to be a somewhat naive view.  Do we have evidence being a scientist makes you moral or holy, above the temptations of the world?  These are humans beings, but treat them as gods and maybe others will go along with the idea.

3.  Ignore any scientist who speaks out against climate change.  Denounce him as “not qualified”, even if he has credentials identical to your climate scientist.  Few people will check.

4.  Ignore the cost of “remediation” for climate change.  Accept that the only solution for climate change is stopping industrialization.  Repeat often that humans can NOT adapt.

5.  Appeal to “the greater good”.  Emphasize sacrificing comfort, the economy and anything else required for the cause.  Emphasize “do as we say, not do as we do” should any deniers mention the globetrotting nature of climate change conferences.  Remind individuals we all sacrifice at different levels.

6.  Acceptance reinforces the believers key philosophy.  Climate change is to socialists as cat nip is to cats–they get high on it.  It elevates scientists to the omniscient level of gods, allowing no dissent in one’s move to save the world and make it a socialist utopia.  Wealth and industry threaten this dream and must be stopped at all costs.  Most importantly, people need to be told what is good for them and what they need to do.  The are not smart enough to be trusted with saving the world on their own.

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.“global-warming”-data/

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.