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.

Advertisements

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

Odds’n’Ends

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.
NOAA

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.

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 Care2.com 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…..an 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. https://whynotwind.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/moms-clean-air-force-clueless-and-dangerous/)

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: http://www.care2.com/causes/5-ways-to-talk-with-conservatives-about-climate-change.html#ixzz45jRQSdbY)

What Has Not Been Addressed

“Having the reality of the destructive forces presented by climate change fully register with people, so they will to act with the needed urgency, is indeed a challenge. And, while the physical and environmental effects of global warming are studied and described, what has rarely been addressed, and is as compelling a topic as any, are the psychological impacts.”
National Wildlife Federation

What has not been addressed is the psychological effect of scamming millions of people based on modeling of a phenomena that is not actually occurring in an effort to get people to hand over cash and let their lives be dictated by the elite rulers of the world. What has not been addressed is the the effect of lying and misleading an entire population telling them humans control the weather and if bad weather occurs, it’s only because humans were so evil and bad as to burn the oil and gas they found for heat and electricity. What has not been addressed is the anger and rage that will be felt when blizzards, tornadoes, heat waves and floods increase in spite of people living in dire poverty in a vain effort to control that which they can never control. What has not been addressed is why people were shamed and humiliated, to point of suicide in some cases, for engaging in activities that better their lives. What has not been addressed is how to explain to children that the environmentalists killed all the eagles, bats and eventually drove to near extinction hundreds of species of animals via their lust for renewable, useless sources of energy. What has not been addressed is the landscape carnage left behind by those useless sources of energy, a barren landscape with ghost towers and broken glass panels everywhere, reminders of what damage greed and lack of caring can do to the planet. What has not been addressed is what happens when the reality of the lie of global warming becomes undeniable.

Call me when it’s safe out there.

Beware

I was attempting to catch up on blogs, having been out of town for three days, and I once again ran into the claim that the fossil fuel industry is to blame for skepticism.

Last night I looked up my “favorite” guy, Philip Anschutz. You remember him–loves Western vistas as long as he owns them. Everyone else can stare at the useless wind turbines he wants to destroy the landscape with. A true environmentalist in that respect–“I have mine, who care about you?” He’s running the Foundation for a Better Life spots on TV again, which undoubtedly means he’s about to shaft another group in his quest to make money.

The interesting thing here is he’s in oil and gas and that’s where his billions came from. So how is it a self-proclaimed conservative and oil guy is trying to desecrate Wyoming with wind turbines–MONEY. It’s always about the money. Not oil and gas, not any particular thing. As I once said to a Wyoming politician, these people would sell their mothers and spouses to the devil to make more money. It doesn’t matter if it damages the environment like the turbines do, it doesn’t matter who you stomp on along the way. Remember, you’ve got yours and no one else deserves to have the Western vistas you look at, no one else deserves to live in a place free of monstrous, useless, bird-killing machines. There is nothing Christian, caring or anything similar to be found in this behaviour. It’s greedy and uncaring. (Note: I am all for free enterprise. What I am not for is the utter hypocrisy in lying to people about wanting them to have a better life while trashing where they live and soaking up money stolen from them through taxation for unworkable projects. Even if Anschutz takes NO tax credits, he still benefits from California’s RPS. He is still forcing people to accept that which does not work. That is not Christian and it’s not caring. It’s the lies that I don’t like, not that he has money or that he uses it as he sees fit. You can do what you want, just don’t lie to me that you care in the least.)

Next time you see a spot for “Foundation for a Better Life”, think HIS better life, not yours. He’s all about himself and his money, not a better life for other people.
Oil and gas companies love climate change–they just eat up billions in subsidies and laugh. Turbines will never replace oil and gas and you greens just made the oil folks so much richer. Congrats.  I’m sure the oil million and billionaires thank you.

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.