Category: Global Warming

Global Warming

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Or, as Rush Limbaugh phrases it, “If It's Thursday... We Have Revised Jobless Numbers.”

 

Much like Michael Mann, the Obama administration is trying to hide the decline.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Very Funny

Very funny.  Well, very funny if you are a total blog geek.  H/T Steve Milloy.  If you don’t know who Charles Johnson or LGF is, then you need to do some more research.

Garbage In, Garbage Out

AJ Strata just posted an impressive analysis on the relationship between undersea volcanoes and the relationship to El Niño/La Niña currents.  His blog was cross-posted at WUWT.

I started poking at this topic after seeing several discussions regarding the effects of  undersea volcanoes on seasonal events such as the arctic ice extent.  It made sense to me that seasonal events can be affected by massive events like undersea eruptions.  To Global Warming Alarmists, a declining ice pack is an unprecedented cataclysmal event.  To a rational, free-thinking individual, the presence of thousands of acres of molten lava underneath the ice ought to have some measurable effect, and is certainly not proof of Global Warming.

I have been background researching a related topic, namely the claim that Antarctica was exhibiting a lot of warming. However, when you dig into it, the location of all the significant loss is the Antarctic Peninsula -- which is apparently directly in a current eddy from recently discovered underwater volcanoes.

Check out this image describing the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, and note the loop in the Weddell sea (Wikipedia has a similar current map ) :

clip_image002

My observation is that deep warm water from the recently discovered volcanoes actually flows in a loop right past the area in Antarctica that is experiencing the most noticeable warming.

clip_image004 clip_image006

Map Info

There are major problems with all the computer models used by the so-called scientists trying to foster the global warming myth upon us all.  For one thing, at elevations above sea-level, where the sun shires, those models ignore the effect of sunlight and variations in solar output.  Worse, beneath the sea, where the sun don’t shine, their best explanations are based on the cyclical nature of solar output.

The term for this is GIGO.

Newt and Geeks

I’ve been busy, so not a lot of posting lately.  Ok, no posts.  Part of this was the Primaries have caught my attention, and I don’t like any of the candidates.  Mostly though, I really have been busy.  It turns out I have a company to run.  Who knew?

However, with Newt’s recent upset in South Carolina, I began to see some hope in the race.  Ever since Fred Thompson, I have been waiting for a candidate willing to fight for conservative principles.  I was not happy about McCain, but when he selected Sarah Palin, I was ecstatic, hoping finally for a campaign of ideas.  A fight.  Unfortunately, McCain shut the Palin camp up, and eventually lost while trying to be the nice guy.

It is not that conservatives think Newt is our spokesman.  He blew that over the past several years with his lack of knowledge on Global Warming, one of the touchstones we use to determine who is really a conservative.  I could list other examples, but the point is that Newt has not been a great representative of conservative thought in the past decade.

However, he can articulate conservative thoughts, which makes him valuable to us.  And, as he has now demonstrated, he is willing to fight for those principles, making him a lot more interesting than Perry was, or Santorum, for that matter.

Now, I bring all of that up only to change the subject.  For the real geeks out there, check out this intensely technical discussion regarding Equation 8 in Global Warming discussions. 

Now, to the point:  How can I tie Newt into pure geek conservative?  I believe that Newt is willing to learn where he is wrong, and is able to change his mind.  My guess is that he is the only current candidate that could wade through a technical discussion like this and emerge from the far side with an actual opinion based on reason.  I can’t see Santorum engaging in this discussion, nor Romney.  As a result, I think they are both too subject to the opinions of their handlers.  I discount Ron Paul, as obviously I do Obama.  That leaves Newt as the only choice I see as a candidate able to make the difficult decisions we now face.  To fight the necessary fight.

So, unless or until we get Palin through a brokered convention, I am now ready to make an endorsement: Newt Gingrich.

We’re not in Kansas anymore

Frankly, the portion of the scientific community that pushes political views as “science” is as dangerous as a dirty politician.  For much the same reason.  In fact, both groups appear to be motivated more by personal greed than they do political views.  Both groups belong in jail (after a thorough public shaming).

It is time to look behind that curtain.

Here’s a nice summary of the corruption from the National Association of Scholars.

H/t Instapundit

Conservatives and Science

Original_picPart of the responsibility of calling yourself a conservative is to do the research and get the facts right.  Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) cannot make that claim, and as such has no right to call himself a conservative, let alone speak on behalf of the movement. 

If he had done the research, he would have found that global warming science a lot less settled than he is claiming.  Declaring consensus is not a way to conduct science, nor does the declaration mean the science is settled.  Especially when consensus was reached out of non-scientific motivations such as funding and other political gains.

For that matter, what is “settled science”?  Frankly, we thought Einstein settled a lot of science last century, with greater than 95% acceptance among physicists regarding the Theory of Relativity, and yet I note that there is a group out of CERN asking the community to scrutinize their work over recent findings that there might be faster-than-light neutrinos. Note that they are asking the scientific community help reviewing their findings, because their results do not make sense according to the consensus.  Note also that no one is calling them deniers for having the temerity to question the foundation of much of modern physics.

The global warming controversy is just that: controversy.  It is not a reasoned scientific debate, and challengers to the theory are silenced.  Not since the Galileo has so much effort been made to shut down opposing points of view.  Not since Columbus has such poorly conceived “science” been accepted as “settled”. 

This is not science, it is politics.   

Ask your self this…  When someone tries to control the language, invokes political correctness, are they making a scientific argument, or a political one?  Is it Anthropogenic Global Warming, Global Warming, Climate Change, or (gasp) natural cycles of the sun. Is CO2 a pollutant?  Is CO2 cause or an effect of generalized warming—in other words, does the greenhouse effect work outside of computer models?

If you think this post is a bit over-linked, that was intentional.  Liberals can make outrageous claims while offering no proof.  Who cares?  They have no credibility as a result.  Conservatives should not.  Especially not when they are attempting to speak on behalf of the movement.  So this post is for you, Bob Inglis.  It’s time to stop playing politics and do your homework.  Then maybe you won’t sound so stupid.  Then, maybe, you can try and claim to be a conservative without embarrassing us.

Climategate: Follow the Money

It’s always a good idea to follow the money.  Basically, thanks to government funding, we created a bunch of climate whores.

Darwin Zero, Smoking Gun Won

First off, I am not even going to try and explain the headline.  Read the Darwin Zero report from Willis Eschenbach at the informativeWatts Up With That site by Anthony Watts.  You’ll either get it or you won’t.  That’s part of the problem with liberals, they are too lazy to do the research, they trust their opinions and the opinions of friends, and ignore anything that contradicts them.  

Want to be right?  Read the link.  It won’t take all that long, and this is important. 

The following graph is the smoking gun, showing just how artificially the Climategate crowd has been altering the raw data to make it fit.  The black line jumping every 20 years was averaged into raw data to turn a temperature decline into an increase.

Even before Climategate, there was more than enough information available for a curious person to satisfy their self that global warming, if any, was not man made and certainly not caused by CO2

In other words, Climategate is only simplifying the fraud down to a level where even the MSM can understand it.  Which may force the ones that value what little reputation they have left to do a little actual research and reporting.

The rest of us, the smart ones, had already looked into the the issues such as C02 lagging behind warming periods (or here), the lack of automobiles during the Medieval Warming Period, and the failure of climate models to include either fluctuations in solar output or the effect of clouds (or here). 

Basically, for quite some time, you had to be a fool to believe in AGW.  To still believe, you need to admit it’s a religion, not science.

“Hide the decline” and Climategate explained

From the American Thinker come an in-depth exploration of the Climategate fraud, the lies used to push the idea of man-made global, as well as the tools and techniques used by the CRU and Michael Mann to “hide the decline”. 

The magical faraway tree - a larch in the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia, sampled by Dr Keith Briffa, has been called 'the most influential tree in the world'

On a related note, once again Americans need to turn to the British media to find information that the MSM has deemed unsuitable for the unwashed masses, as Climategate reveals “the most influential tree in the world.”

UN-American IPCC

To really understand the global warming scam, you have to understand the religious zealotry driving its proponents.  To them, the problem isn’t that the world might get warmer, or colder.  Instead, the issue is simply the U.S.  Us. Americans. Western Civilization.  The problem is we consume too much.  In fact, if you don’t stop using your refrigerator and your air conditioning, we’re all going to die. 

That is not my hyperbole, that is from the chair of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), who claims that the western lifestyle is “unsustainable.”  If we continue to live as we do, civilization will collapse. 

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Calling our lifestyle unsustainable is a religious belief, not a scientific one.  With that kind of righteousness driving the debate on global warming, it is no wonder that so many scientists felt obligated to fake their data.

Pages: 12NextReturn Top
Minimize

Comments

BofA
Copyright 2012 by Chip Meyer Terms Of Use | Privacy Statement