The Climate Change Paradox

Red Apple-White-Black.Untitled

When Academia Became Irrelevant

Public education has become the least essential and most anachronistic of government institutions. That’s the lesson plan of global warming alarmism and building a road back to relevance apparently has been outsourced to outside the West. The gaping credibility abyss yawns widely ahead and we may not be this way again or any better able than we are now to avoid the well-trodden path that leads to the death of civilizations.

Fingering the real lying liars of the Global Warming Debate is a difficult topic to broach and harder still is knowing the global warming debate is just the tip of the iceberg — just a subset of the real problem: the increasing irrelevancy of government-funded education (at least at the federal level). No one wants to be honest about it yet but if it’s not addressed it’ll drag us down like a stone.

We as a society have a problem. We must address the Climate Change Paradox. If the predictors of global warming are correct, then they have solved the simulation problem –i.e., the computer models they possess must now be clear and accurate reproductions of nature. However, to believe there are so many — but, only in Western academia — who have successfully digitized faithful copies of nature is, irrational! Alan Turing may have invented the machine capable of deciphering a Nazi machine but none of us humans – not even Western school teachers – have yet to decode the secrets of Mother Nature. The enigma of climate change remains.

Applying the Discombobulating Principle to the global warming problem,  nothing explains the level of certainty about AGW theory in the field of climatology that ultimately is not merely, cosmological. AGW theory can never be reduced to a falsifiable hypothesis and therefore it has no practical utility outside of making something that is unimaginably complex appear to be insanely simple: like modeling nature by fitting a least squares trend-line to a haze of points, tra-la.

According to Donna Laframboise, Freeman Dyson (one of the world’s finest scientific minds [link]) says, “[climate] models are useless for predicting what’s going to happen more than five days from now.” CO2 isn’t scary, it’s plant food:

There are huge, non-climate effects of carbon dioxide which are overwhelmingly favourable which are not taken into account. To me, that’s the main issue, that the Earth is actually growing greener. This has actually been measured from satellites. The whole Earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so it’s increasing agricultural yields, it’s increasing the forests, it’s increasing all kinds of growth in the biological world. (~Freeman Dyson, see link, ibid.)

Essentially, we’re taxing ourselves to pay government bureaucrats to teach the children a new age religion in public schools — to bring them up with a reverence for the new faith of Climatology. There’s not much that can be done about it other than a Founders’ version of following in the footsteps of Chairman Mao –i.e., defund this government-subsidized Prison of Belief and pack all of the school teachers off to the farms for a thorough reeducation about the importance of CO2 to a healthier world economy — it’s “extremely important,” says Dyson. “It’s enormously beneficial both to food production and to biodiversity, preservation of species, and everything else that’s good.” (See, ibid.)

Western academia’s fear of global warming at home is contributing to local ruin in developing countries where they desperately need more not less energy. It’s also ruining things at home. By traditional standards of validation that are a part of the scientific method the AGW hypothesis – that humanity’s release of CO2 into the atmosphere caused the global warming over the second half of the 20th century – is like following in the footsteps of David Koresh and the apocalyptic death cult of the Branch Davidians who believed they were following the dictates of their god. A society that confuses minister turned lifetime politician Al Gore for science, gives Obama two terms, hands their economic sovereignty over to the UN and flirts with handing over the presidency to Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, with John Kerry their VP, is on a death march to Greece.

Pushing the idea that humanity is causing the globe to overheat, as a byproduct of simply earning a living (and, it has to stop), has become the biggest backfire in history – a social cascade of beliefs that are identified with a crazy notion that if believed, would paint 97% of academia as hopelessly and forever clueless. Western academia has become the Great Britain of great nations –e.g., once powerful, now a mediocre player at best on the world stage: a believer and purveyor of superstitious pseudo-science as the rest us set off for work in the morning to earn a living by actually having to productively employ our energies to provide value.

Cognitive psychologists consider the availability heuristic [where our feelings about the likelihood of an event simply becomes the result of relying on what most easily comes to mind] to be a key determinant of individual judgment and perception… Our principal claim here is that this heuristic interacts with identifiable social mechanisms to generate availability cascades—social cascades, or simply cascades, through which expressed perceptions trigger chains of individual responses that make these perceptions appear increasingly plausible through their rising availability in public discourse. Availability cascades may be accompanied by counter-mechanisms that keep perceptions consistent with the relevant facts… The resulting mass delusions may last indefinitely, and they may produce wasteful or even detrimental laws and policies. ~Kuran T and Sunstein CR (1999). Availability cascades and risk regulation. Stanford Law Review, 51(4): 683-768.

Hopefully, it’s not already too late to address the insanity of the Left’s social cascade of mass delusion before the dysfunctional social mechanism of global warming alarmism makes a wasteland of our Western culture. Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ science and the continuing parroting of a mythical 97% consensus among scientists that AGW theory is true are examples of a social cascade that help keep the global warming hoax and scare tactics alive. Believing the oceans are warming when there has been no global warming going on 3 decades, depending on the data source used, is another cascade. Learn to ask a Bostonian the right question and you might get the truth –e.g., don’t ask what they think about a dying polar bear but about the January to March, 2015 cold spell.

The use of AGW theory to blame people who work for a living, for causing climate change, has become the key political tool in the Left’s takeover of the American economy. Sensationalizing every weather event and blaming it on human-caused global warming has become a social movement. The underlying motives of the Left’s propaganda about everything that is bad about America explains everything about what they also believe is good, from California’s bullet train that goes nowhere to government-subsidized Teslas that run only on sunlight. What is going on? An official shadow economy now exists with the people’s savings, the stored labor of the productive, earning virtually no interest at all while a company like Tesla Motors Inc. with no earnings or dividends has a $26.17B market cap.

Indeed, predictable social forces may reinforce rather than dampen sensational charges. One such force involves the mass media. The typical newspaper, magazine, or television station incurs a large penalty whenever it falls behind its rivals in reporting “breaking news.” Because a good relative position in the media hierarchy translates into disproportionately large profit differentials, a media outlet that exercises caution in reporting a frightening story may find itself at a huge, possibly irreversible, competitive disadvantage. Facing a prisoner’s dilemma with respect to sensational stories, it has every reason to compete aggressively to report sensationalistic stories as rapidly as possible. (See, Kuran, et al., supra)

The media has become a tool of the Left and irrelevant to true knowledge. It has become profitable to be a facilitator of the official global warming social cascade –e.g., the government assists with a nonsensical EPA fuel economy rating of 89 MPGe that it gives to Tesla based on the immaterial fact that the energy contained in a single gallon of gas is 115,000 Btu or 33.7 kW (and, 38 kW is enough to power a Tesla for 100 miles). It takes more than a gallon of gas to actually generate and then transmit 33.7 kW of electricity to a Tesla owner’s garage. The Tesla’s rating should be more like 34 MPG on an honest comparative basis and that would not even include all the petroleum-driven machinery required to fabricate the batteries made of rare earths from China. A Mercedes E-Class with intelligent clean diesel technology that satisfies even the most stringent regulatory requirements, as in California and Massachusetts, gets 42 MGP on the highway, it costs far less and has more than 3 times the range. That is life in the real world. Government should not use our tax dollars to skew economic decisions when the end result is simply to increase our dependence on the rare earth metals required to fabricate Li-ion batteries.

Sure, sure, a Tesla is fast but do we want government to subsidize the manufacturer of the fastest ever 0-60 automobile for wealthy Californians and crazy Norwegians? Sure too, we can charge-up Tesla’s using hydroelectric power that is kept artificially low for homeowners’ use, that is not further burdened with excise taxes to pay the costs to build and maintain the roads and HOV lanes for electric cars. But, just imagine for a moment the insurmountable regulatory obstacles to be faced and the enormous amounts of diesel fuel that would be required to build the Hoover Dam today, to charge-up our Teslas batteries. The current low cost of electricity is a legacy of our ancestors who obviously were a lot smarter that we are today (they were not afraid to liberate the CO2 required to make the cement that was used to build the Hoover Dam); and besides, 40% of the nation’s electrical grid is actually generated using coal – the evil demon of the Left. Or, we could charge up our Tesla batteries with the energy from heavily subsidized solar or wind power. Our government is telling us unsustainably big whoppers that are a part of the social cascade to keep the government-education bureaucracy in the catbird seat. Meanwhile, GM (government motors) announced Friday it will stop Volt production until 2016 as unsold inventory languishes on lots.

The multi-billion-dollar agenda reflects the Obama Administration’s commitment to using climate change to radically transform America. It reflects a determination to make the climate crisis industry so enormous that no one will be able to tear it down, even as computer models and disaster claims become less and less credible – and even if Republicans control Congress and the White House after 2016 [there exists] … a long list of regulators, researchers, universities, businesses, manufacturers, pressure groups, journalists and politicians with such strong monetary, reputational and authority interests in alarmism that they will defend its tenets and largesse tooth and nail. ~Paul Driessen, “The tip of the climate spending iceberg”

Meanwhile, the sun has gone from a geophysically unique Grand Maximum event during the last half of the 20th century to its current state of anomalous quietus, while academia wishes to remain oblivious to the Sun having gone on hiatus. What is the consensus of opinion as to what constitutes a not too hot and not too cold but just right, subsistence level of economic development, for the world’s inhabitants? With all of the barefaced certainty about global warming amidst all of the demonstrated uncertainty about climate change, someone should tell climatologists – Western science’s arrogantly unerring keepers of pharaoh’s omniscient and omnipotent laws of global warming – that there’s a new god in town.

Why we remain heedless of record-breaking solar activity simply defies logic. What we now know about the sun explains everything about late 20th century warming. As it turns out, “the modern Grand maximum (which occurred during solar cycles 19–23, i.e., 1950-2009),” says Ilya Usoskin, “was a rare or even unique event, in both magnitude and duration, in the past three millennia.” ~Usoskin et al., Evidence for distinct modes of solar activity, A&A 562 (2014)

Solar variations and volcanic eruptions are a wild card. Russian scientists argue that there was a Grand Solar Maximum that peaked in the late 20th century, and that we can expect a Grand Solar Minima (contributing to cooling) to peak around 2060… And finally, we can’t rule out unforeseen surprises. The hiatus in warming in the early 21st century was an unforeseen surprise. ~Judith Curry (House of Rep. Hearing, The President’s U.N. Climate Pledge, 15 Apr 2015)

Wholesale corruption in the government-education industry isn’t going to stop so long as we continue to pay for it. Earning a living by actually providing value to society is hard work and that is not what global warming is all about. Global warming is about pretending you’re saving the world while sipping margaritas on a veranda in Cancun with Al Gore and some Hollywood swells, as their private jets are readied for a quick jaunt to Paris, where nuclear power plants generate the power needed to illuminate the Eiffel Tower into the late night.

These are the folks that wish to send the rest of us back to the horse and buggy and a helluvalotta horsesh*t, especially when you consider that we may actually be in the midst of a cooling trend. The average temperature of the globe shows no global warming despite the fact the temperatures being averaged include a systemic warming bias: all of the official thermometers are located where people live and as a result, the data that is collected is corrupted by the UHI (Urban Heat Island) effect.

According to NASA, “On Sept. 19, 2014, the five-day average of Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 20 million square kilometers for the first time since 1979.” Isn’t it interesting that, as soon as we were able to accurately measure it — using satellites (beginning in 1979) — global warming stopped. Amazing.

The global warming debate has come full circle. AGW theory of Western science has become a house of cards with the new issue being how best to put an end to the systemic fear and ignorance that typifies the government-education complex. Western academia’s supposed “97% consensus” about the legitimacy of its cause — essentially to put an end to modernity for our own good – is a form of revanchism against the public’s growing skepticism of AGW and the never ending funding of global warming research.

Climate change is nothing more now than a Left vs. right issue. So, we’re having a global warming debate and its not over; and, up to now I question whether any of it has advanced science. So far I see only one obvious conclusion – that it’s a debate with two sides, as follows:

► On one side — populated primarily by Left-thinking folks — is the belief that mere simulation of reality is, reality; and,

► On the other side, the rest of us see simulated reality as nothing but mere shadows on the walls of Plato’s prison cave.

The real question to be debated has become something quite different from whether AGW theory is true or not. Rather than ask if humanity is causing global warming we really need to ask why the Left wants so badly for this to be so, even if it isn’t true. The Left demands that humanity be held guilty of causing the climate to change and so long as that is what they really want, facts won’t matter. Other issues won’t matter.

“Nevertheless,” says Judith Curry (Climate change availability cascade), “climate change has become a grand narrative in which human-caused climate change has become a dominant cause of societal problems… Politicians, activists and journalists have stimulated an ‘availability cascade’ [link] to support alarm about human-caused climate change… Because slowly increasing temperatures don’t seem alarming, the ‘availability entrepreneurs’ push extreme weather events and public health impacts as being caused by human-caused climate change, more of which is in store if we don’t quickly act to cool the planet by reducing fossil fuel emissions.”

Is climate change making us stupid? I fear that the answer is yes. ~Judith Curry (Ibid.)

Posted in The Cultural Hegemony of Climate Superstition | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Abyss of Global Warming Hysterics

Fear,_Natalia_Plachta_Fernandes-Cropped~4

DC’s Bloom Is Off the Math

It’s official: the NPS announced that 2015’s peak bloom date for Washington DC’s cherry blossoms occurred April 10. What we learned (see previous article [Link]) is that the cherry blossoms defied Pres. Obama’s 8-Apr-2015’s claims of Global Warming by blooming later than the April 4th peak bloom date 1921-2011 average.

Who was it who said we could look to cherry blossoms anyway for evidence of global warming and proof that humanity was heating up the globe with its release of CO2 into the atmosphere during the last half of the 20th century (AGW Theory)? For starters, the National Museum, at the heart of the nations capitol – the Smithsonian said, “the trend toward earlier blooming of flowering plants may be a result of global warming.”

Pregnant with inferences to a looming disaster, a “30-year study of flowering plant species common in the Washington, D.C. metro area,” was released by the Smithsonian along with their pronouncement that a, “trend of earlier flowering is consistent with what we know about the effects of global warming.” Obviously, late-arriving cherry blossoms do not fit the scenario of our coming doom nor that the cherry blossoms provide evidence supporting AGW Theory.

The only thing the Smithsonian has accomplished is living up to what has become our worst expectations about bad government and bad science: both look at the world through the lens of preconceived notions and find what they want to find irrespective of the facts. My point here is not to point to the April 10 peak bloom dates for the last two years as evidence of global cooling, not warming. Rather, it is to show that the government’s math is wacky. Here’s the peak blooming dates since 1921, that they had to work with (Data source: National Park Service Historic Peak Bloom Dates):

NPS-blooms

1921 March 20 • 1922 April 7 • 1923 April 9
1924 April 13 • 1925 March 27 • 1926 April 11
1927 March 20 • 1928 April 8 • 1929 March 31
1930 April 1 • 1931 April 11 • 1932 April 15
1933 April 9  1934 April 15 1935 April 1
1936 April 7 1937 April 14 1938 March 25
1939 March 30 1940 April 13 1941 April 12
1942 April 5 1943 April 4 1944 April 9
1945 March 20 1946 March 23 1947 April 12
1948 March 28 1949 March 29 1950 April 9
1951 April 6 1952 April 9 1953 March 27
1954 April 6 1955 April 2  1956 April 6
1957 April 8  1958 April 18 1959 April 6
1960 April 14 1961 April 2 1962 April 7
1963 April 3  1964 April 11  1965 April 15
1966 April 5  1967 April 6  1968 March 30
1969 April 9  1970 April 16  1971 April 8
1972 April 11 1973 April 11 1974 April 3
1975 April 3 1976 March 23 1977 March 26
1978 April 12 1979 April 2 1980 April 6
1981 April 3 1982 April 7  1983 April 7
1984 April 3  1985 April 7  1986 April 2
1987 March 28 1988 March 31 1989 Mar 29
1990 March 15  1991 March 29 1992 April 7
1993 April 11 1994 April 5 1995 April 2
1996 April 4 1997 March 26 1998 March 27
1999 April 5 2000 March 17 2001 April 6
2002 April 2 2003 April 2 2004 March 31
2005 April 9 2006 March 30 2007 April 1
2008 March 29 2009 April 1 2010 March 31
2011 March 29 2012 March 20 2013 April 9
2014 April 10 2015 April 10

The real math shows the real story and you don’t have to take my word for it. You can do the math yourself. I can prove to you that I looked at the matter closely –e.g., take a look at the link to the government’s “Data Source” above: notice that the government’s data for years 2003 and 2004 are repeated twice.

Using a thorough method of reckoning I verified the 4-April average bloom date. The government’s date is a correct average from 1921 to 2015, with this one caveat: the average number of days is 94.1 from the beginning of the year so on average the peak bloom falls on 3-Apr on leap years (on every 4th year when February has 29 days) and 4-April on common years.

More interesting is that the Smithsonian should have known that on average nothing has really changed over the years, either before or after 1950, marking the beginning of the last half of the 20th century. Here’s the facts:

Number of Years, 1921-1949: 29
Number of Years, 1950-2015: 66
Average number of days from beginning of year until peak bloom, 1921-1949: 94.3
Average number of days from beginning of year until peak bloom, 1950-2015: 94.0

We’re talking about Washington DC’s cherry blossoms reaching peak bloom on average over the 95 years since 1921 on, April 4th; and, also over the last half of the 20th century – the period during which global warming alarmists blame humanity for heating the globe and incidentally causing cherry blossoms to bloom too early – and, the same average number of days for the 29 years before that, beginning in 1921. Moreover, the trend is not helpful to AGW theorists either with peak bloom dates of, 9-April, 10-­April and 10-April for 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively.

2015 was the coldest
January through March in the entire record
in the 10 Northeast States and DC ~Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

Posted in The Cultural Hegemony of Climate Superstition | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

How Cool is Global Warming in Washington, DC

Evidence of GW-Peak Bloom

Cherry Blossom Bloom Schedule

Forecasting peak bloom is almost impossible more than 10 days in advance. The cherry trees’ blossom development is dependent on weather conditions, which are inherently variable. National Park Service horticulturists monitor bud development and report the status of the blossoms. The table shows bud development data for Yoshino cherry trees, the most common trees in the park. ~NPS (National Park Service)

NPS-Bloom

Forecast: Peak Bloom this weekend is possible…

UPDATE (9-Apr-15): Puffy White officially occurred on the 8th of April.

Latest WA-DC news: Cherry Blossoms Defy Claims of Global Warming Today (8-Apr-2015) by Pres. Obama…

WA-DC-Some White Blooms-APR-8-2015~2

Note: NPS still expects “peak bloom” to fall between April 11-14.

Note: “The earliest recorded peak bloom,” according to NPS records, “was March 18 (2000). The latest was April 18 (1958)…  Since 1921, the overall average peak bloom date has been April 3.” The current NPS 2015 Peak Bloom Forecasts is as follows: April 11-14. Previous articles about the link between, Washington, DC’s cherry blossoms and global warming, are as follows:

Blooming Blossoms, Global Warming and Academy Awards

What is Higher than Learning? Brian Williams and I were invited to view a gathering of the greatest minds in the Western World last Sunday – the 87th Academy Awards. An overall consensus of opinion was that there are several big problems… Continue reading

Cherry Blossom Time — a Picture in Al Gore’s Bathroom Befuddles Global Warmers

What happens when Al Gore hears that cherry blossoms in Washington will be a bit late this year? Someone put a cone on his neck before he chews a leg off. Oh how the Left crapped itself silly last year… Continue reading

???????????????????????????????

Updated 13-Apr-2015
Posted in The Cultural Hegemony of Climate Superstition | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Global Warming, Uncle Commie and the Whole Nine Yards

Is it possible

Creating Knowledge Using Only Consensus

There’s much we can accomplish with but a fraction of the facts, although we often must take maximum advantage of every superstition and bias that the ignorant masses have to offer. Moreover, especially as voting season nears, now is the time to pander to the self-serving government bureaucrats and usual Democrat voters who all see what’s in our pockets as their revenues.

Unionized public school teachers, for example, are helping to pick the next president, beginning with electing for a second term a governor with Alzheimer’s who blames the state’s current 3-year drought on global warming. California’s Governor Brown is most famous for saying anything to sell the idea of using public money to build a bullet train to nowhere; and, for giving tax credits to wealthy Tesla buyers. Meanwhile, nothing is  invested in water storage or using energy to desalinate water.

Every climate change junkie is busy putting on their jackboots for the next election. Adding to the increasingly obvious conclusion that global warming is nothing but Left versus right politics – having nothing to do with science – we have on the Left the likes of Al Gore, Howard Stern, Obama, Hillary and the usual Hollywood types from Whoopie to Ronstadt and all of the loons on the View who will wipe their feet on presidential hopefuls on the right like Republican Ted Cruz, a graduate of Princeton and Harvard, because they are global warming deniers.

The big difference between the two political parties — ostensibly representing the Left vs. the right — is that the Left is pro-UN; and, the Left believes in the centralization of planning of society by a big and powerful government. The right, however, believes the power of the people should have preeminence over government; and, the right is therefore, pro-individual liberty not pro-UN; and, the right believes in a smaller not bigger government and more not less personal freedom and responsibility.

The IPCC, like any UN body, is political. The final conclusions are politically driven. ~Dr. Philip Stott

Why are we funding Left-thinking, government-funded schoolteachers in academia to tell us global warming is real but we just can’t find it now because it’s hiding deep in the oceans? We’re all idiots if we allow our thinking to be swayed by the wisdom of academics and Hollywierds or listen to Leftist-inspired government propaganda. When we let government use our lack of understanding to play on our fears about a non-problem like climate change to justify stupidly insane policies, we’re simply acknowledging the fact that we live in a superlatively rich society.

Western society has the means to pay people to engage in nothing but esoteric thinking. Poorer cultures don’t have that luxury, not shielded by the convenience of making choices they don’t really have to live by. But, what are we receiving for our tax dollars, the billion dollars a day that is coming out of our pockets? Like the lawyer tax that eats into the earnings of the productive, we have a climate tax that lowers the net present wealth of the country, robs opportunity and impoverishes millions. Global warming has become a vanity science.

Like Scientology, has global warming become Hollywood and academia’s, prison of belief? Have you heard about scientific research (the Cook, et al. paper) proving there is a consensus of opinion among scientists that humanity is causing global warming? About the supposed 97% consensus, Richard Tol says, “If you want to believe climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s paper is an excellent case in point.” Can’t we say the same about all of the defenders of what turns out to be a wholly unscientific study, and all those who parrot the results of a study that is patently absurd on its face, knowing full well such belief, as Hillary likes to say, requires a willing suspension of disbelief? And, who are these defenders and parrots if not solely on the side of the Democrat party, the government bureaucracy, Leftist-thinking school teachers and Uncle Commie?

Although there are large areas of substantive agreement, climate science is far from settled. Witness the dozens of alternative explanations of the 18-year pause in warming of the surface atmosphere…

Their conclusions are about the papers they happened to look at, rather than about the literature. Attempts to replicate their sample failed: a number of papers that should have been analyzed were not, for no apparent reason…

The sample was padded with irrelevant papers. An article about TV coverage on global warming was taken as evidence for global warming. In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter…

Cook’s hand-picked raters disagreed on what a paper was about 33 per cent of the time. In 63 per cent of cases, they disagreed about the message of a paper with the authors of that paper… Cook’s employer argued that releasing rater identities would violate a confidentiality agreement. That agreement does not exist… Time stamps reveal… one of Cook’s raters inspected 675 abstracts within 72 hours, a superhuman ­effort…

This would have been an amusing how-not-to tale for our students… Incompetence was compounded by cover-up and complacency… ~Richard Tol (See Andrew Bolt [97 per cent of climate scientists look shifty])

Sometimes it pays to take a look backward before moving forward, especially in science. If we are looking for problems to solve we’re looking in the wrong place. We need to start by defining the problem and it’s not climate change, it’s the politics of climate change. If the average temperature of the globe really was a problem we would of course want to find out what was causing it. And, we know that: nominally, the sun is the cause. The number of sunspots is a usual sign we use to get an insight into changes in solar activity. Over the last 150 years the correlation between CO2 and temperature is only 22%. However, the correlation with sunspots is 79%. And, when you combine the known effects of solar activity with various known ocean oscillations like the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) and the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), the correlation is more than 95% (see -e.g. [Link])

So, who pops up next in the list of Left-thinking fear mongers? None other than Michael Mann of ‘hockey stick’ fame who put up an easily debunked conjecture about global warming stopping the AMO that is sure to result in a real-life replay of the fictional movie, “The Day After Tomorrow” (about New Yorkers burning books in a public library – like elderly folk in the UK in 2010 – to survive a bitter cold). Mann actually points to his debunked ‘hockey stick’ data to justify this conclusion. But, we are not seeing Mr. Mann putting his thumb in the eye of everyone who participated in the charade of Mannian hockey stick science, foisted on the public by the UN’s IPCC. This isn’t Mann’s way of putting his soiled reputation aside and coming clean after all of these years –i.e., owning-up to perpetrating a fraud, admitting global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic, apologizing for the hoodwink and for diminishing the credibility of science and wasting the country’s scarce resources. Nope. He’s serious, again. The truth? I thought we were talking about Western academia. Face it: we’ve lived long enough to know you do not go to America’s classrooms to find truth.

Telling us the world may end tomorrow, Mann wants us to ignore those who have actually studied the AMO and not tree rings. Ignore those who say the Atlantic its acting normally and as expected. Forget about statisticians, McShane and Wyner who found absolutely no signal whatsoever in the proxy data Michael Mann used to fabricate the apocryphal hockey stick graph to begin with. “It seems,” says Judith Curry ([Link]), “like strip bark bristlecones and Tiljander sediments can tell us about Gulf Stream flow rates, as well as global temperatures. Remarkable.” Mann simply says, One man’s signal is another man’s noise, and looks to Al Gore for another imminent doom docudrama.

Who would have imagined Michael Mann was a natural comedian? What will he say next, global warming is causing marijuana users to become heroin addicts? I am not always sure about who to believe but I’m pretty sure about what to believe –e.g., Climate models and Mannian proxies can be used to support just about any notion a Leftist-thinking, Earth-on-Fire-or-Iceball academic or Uncle Commie with a PhD wants them to support, irrespective of satellite observations or common sense or all of the natural factors that have caused the climate to change over the past thousands of years.

“The sun is the key ingredient to climate… 99.9% of the energy on the earth that goes into the climate system comes from the sun.” ~David Legates (See–e.g., [Link])

Posted in The Cultural Hegemony of Climate Superstition | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Global Warming a Liberal Prejudice

Still_life_with_a_plate_of_onions~2~2

 Certainty is an Addiction

The Institutionalization of fear about global warming may cause more harm to humanity than tobacco ever did. Climate change has become a new twist on the old saw attributed to Ben Franklin that, in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes. The idea of certainty is so elusive it’s becoming a scarce resource in the Western world. Most in the Third and Developing world are hindered little by a shortage of it because they’re too busy with basic survival today to worry about it –e.g., what the weather will be like in 100 years.

Although it has become obvious to most folks over the last 10 years that global warming is more a political affair than a scientific matter, academia has just recently come around to admitting as much. Even those in academia who now concede that all the alarmism about humanity causing global warming by releasing its CO2 into the atmosphere (AGW theory) is mainly about politics, they’re still not admitting what AGW is now: it’s an addiction. It’s in their blood. Academia’s merchants of doom, corrupted by tenure, are now certain of our doom: It’s Global Warming For Sure, we think.

AGW has of course always been a Left vs. right issue. That’s not new. Most all of academia is mainly Leftist-thinking and has been for a long time and academia’s addiction to AGW theory didn’t happen overnight. What’s really new though is we’ve begun to learn what academia thinks of us who are not addicted. “Unfortunately,” says William Hooke (Reaffirming the Social Contract Between Science and Society), “many scientists have responded by resorting to advocacy. Worse, we’ve too often dumbed down our lobbying until it’s little more than simplistic, orchestrated, self-serving pleas for increased research funding, accompanied at times by the merest smidgen of supporting argument.”

It wouldn’t be so bad if we weren’t talking about scientists who are paid with the public’s money and in whom the futures of the nations’ youth have been entrusted. Global warming alarmism is not the problem, it’s the symptom of a problem: we’re witnessing the fall of Western civilization and the academics of climate doom are a symptom of that. The founders got it – they were right about something we’ve lost: that there’s much more to the story of human civilization than the names of ancestors long dead like Confucius, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad. They are the symbols of a unified code of moral and spiritual precepts upon which society is built; and, when they’re lost, society dies. Dostoevsky probably said it best: “The West has lost Christ and that is why it is dying; that is the only reason.”

Today, by contrast, our (substantially more expensive) scientific research is funded largely by governments and therefore, indirectly, by taxpayer dollars. Much of the support comes from people far more strained financially than we are. ~William Hooke (Ibid.)

Sure, sure, “something is really wrong with the current system that is breeding advocates, partisans and alarmists, and is damaging to the science,” says Judith Curry. “And the taxpayer foots the bill.” And, it’s not just tax dollars from the rest of us who cannot afford to live in air conditioned ivory towers that is paying for academia’s job-killing pseudo science. There are $1.2 trillion in outstanding student loans and 7 million borrowers are in default to the tune of $100 billion; and, for what? To be schooled on the idea that we live too well, take too many hot showers and should all live above a deli and walk to work, sewing flags on the bottoms of recycled trousers?

While Bill Hooke rightfully raises concerns about the behaviors and motives of scientists, I think the other side of the social contract is at least equally problematical. Obama’s administration is ‘using’ climate science to support his political agenda, and is actively discouraging disagreement through consensus enforcement… [e.g., Call Out The Climate Deniers]. So the social contract for climate science seems to be:  support the consensus and promote alarmism, and you will receive plenty of research funding. ~Judith Curry (On the social contract between science and society)

Hooke brings us the concerns of a 17th century philosopher, Francis Bacon: “For it was from lust of power that the angels fell, from lust of knowledge that man fell; but of charity there can be no excess, neither did angel or man ever come in danger by it.” To Bacon’s view of the social contract between scientists and the rest of the world, we can compare the shameful academia-abetted climate politics of –e.g., Bangladesh:

Focusing on global warming instead of child nutrition is quite frankly … almost immoral because it is so easy and cheap.” ~Bjørn Lomborg

Those who are picking up the tab work hard and are tired and tired of being scolded by government experts who have sold their souls for thirty pieces of silver to the priests of global warming. Their climate change gospel is falling on the ears of the masses whose dreams of a healthier lifestyle and emotional and physical self-renewal are like Charles Dickens’ remedy against suicide: “A daily glass of wine, a piece of bread and cheese, and a pipe with tobacco.” The business of global warming alarmism seems oblivious to the welfare of others – especially in third world and developing countries full of dangers; but of energy there can be no excess, neither did angel or man ever come in danger by it.

While rightly providing a needed airing out of the overt self-interest that permeates the public-funded scare-mongering of modern-day academia, Hooke assumes more “well-meaning” than is remotely possible given the unseemly disregard for truth and honesty on exhibition among many climate scientists. Rather, “there is a great deal of misinformation, and even disinformation, polluting the airwaves,” says Brandon Shollenberger. “One prime example was world renowned climate scientist Michael Mann, and his book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines. Mann’s book contains many errors, misrepresentations and outright false statements.”

Rather than 100s of years of calm followed by an inexorable growth in the warmth of the planet like Mann’s hockey stick  graph shows, we have 100s of years of warming and cooling –e.g., “40 periods of warming and cooling have occurred since 1480 AD,” at least says Dr. Easterbrook, “all well before CO2 emissions could have been a factor” – and now a pause in warming of nearly 2 decades and perhaps decades longer. The pause is not political and it’s not a polemic. It is a real world global smackdown of the hubris of experts by Mother Nature.

 I have been developing an awareness of the problems of groupthink and the biases that can occur through institutional ‘leadership’, and I am working to fight against these. ~Judith Curry (Ibid.)

Posted in The Cultural Hegemony of Climate Superstition | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Environmental Junk Science Gobsmacked by Tipping Points

Tipping_Point

Evidence-Based Global Warming a Big No-Show

Panels of experts meet to review the evidence concerning the relationship between climate change and humanity’s continuing release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Coming into the meeting the opinion of these experts is that this single activity, that is engaged in more in the modern world than anywhere else, causes global warming (AGW). At the end of the meeting the opinions of the experts don’t change. Why? This should be a top concern for all scientists.

There is no direct evidence for these panels of experts to consider that links us moderns’ release of CO2 to an increase in global warming. Looking to previous periods of climate change – “Changes in average weather conditions that persist over multiple decades or longer” (see, GlobalChange.gov) – we see nothing happening in the last half of the 20th century that did not also happen, as Walter E. Williams says, “throughout all 4.54 billion years of Earth’s existence.”

When evaluating climate research, should the process begin with or ultimately come down to what research we wish to believe? How much time must we study the studies, to determine which are worth studying? Is our inclusion and exclusion criteria nothing more that discounting studies we know won’t tell us what we want to hear? Even if we have the inclination, do we have enough information about the facts to determine the level of certainty in the estimate of an effect that is being studied? Does a presumed honesty of researchers really assure us of the strength of their conclusions or their abilities to recognize and take account of confounding factors?

There are many confounding factors and without an ability to account for them, a lapse in global warming of 17 to 26 long years (depending on how it’s measured) blows AGW theory. The long pause is evidence of a failure to demonstrate an association between global warming and rising atmospheric CO2 levels. The longer the hiatus the more casual the association between global warming and CO2, the less plausible is AGW theory, the more likely it is global warming is caused by other factors –e.g., solar activity or perhaps, aliens.

Do we want government employees to make decisions about the future on our behalf based on a plausible belief that global warming is caused by aliens? Is it likely that aliens cause global warming? I’m skeptical. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, AGW theory appears at first blush to be a more logical explanation than, aliens. Even so, it certainly is no longer conceivable that CO2 is the only cause of global warming. Given the evidence it’s likely that CO2 is not even a major cause: perhaps a minor player. It certainly is more plausible than aliens that CO2 plays some role but as the cause of global warming, CO2 is far less plausible an explanation than are changes in solar activity and other natural causes such as changes in the Earth’s albedo.

The implications of this paper strike me as profound. Planetary albedo is a fundamental element of the Earth’s climate. This paper [link] implies the presence of a stabilizing feedback between atmosphere/ocean circulations, clouds and radiation. Climate models do not capture this stabilizing feedback. ~Judith Curry

It comes as no surprise that the climate models underlying AGW theory are all wrong. “Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true” (Ioannidis JPA, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False). “Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.” If we really want to know what the climate will be in the future, don’t ask a scientist: we’d be better off asking Juanita.

First there is a warming, then there is no warming, then there is
First there is a warming, then there is no warming, then there is
First there is a warming… (Adapted from Donovan’s, “There Is A Mountain”)

Can we, however, expect the global warming machine to see anything but CO2 and aliens? Is it rational for us to hope for the dawn of reason to open the eyes of those who see humanity and its CO2 as the enemy? The albedo of the Earth is not a Left versus right issue; and, nothing about the science of climate change should be (a Left versus right issue). And yet, unabashed skepticism of scientific skepticism comes so easily to Left-thinking people. Cause and effect?

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude. Conversely, highly skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others. (wiki)

As a society, how many more mistakes can we afford to make? Take the element of fear surrounding modernity’s release of CO2 into the atmosphere out of the equation and programs like government-subsidized electric cars appear for what they are: an expensive dalliance with Marxist-type solutions to solve non-problems. Compare government solutions to allowing market-based solutions like clean diesel technology to more efficiently allocate scarce resources to maximize net present wealth (see –e.g., David Stockman on,  …tesla, bonfire of the money printer…). Promoters of the miracle of Tesla cars, like Morgan Stanley, are yet again fueling up the funny-money propaganda machine and far beyond anything we saw leading up to the market corrections that were caused by the dot-com bubble bust in the ’90s and 2007-9’s credit crunch and housing crash.

We cannot continue to remain indifferent when the EPA pushes job-killing regulations based on “secret science” (see, Boer Deng, Slate, The Secrets of the “Secret Science” Bill). California passed job-killing environmental regulations based on the findings of a researcher whose qualifications amounted to, “a fraudulent degree, purchased from ‘Thornhill University,’ a shady, long-distance diploma mill” (See, David French, Here’s One Way to Reach Scientific Consensus).

“Bjorn Lomborg has gone so far as to compare the close ties among regulatory agencies, private equity firms, and many corporations as akin to what President Eisenhower once warned against…,” says Michael E. Zimmerman (download, …An Integral Approach to Climate Change). “Lomborg is not alone in arguing that the ‘climate-industrial complex’ has in effect co-opted the climate change debate, with the aim of representing the only possible solution as one that happens to be compatible with the interests of the organizations who stand to benefit from costly and still-speculative schemes to reduce carbon emissions.”

Consensus is all-too-often created through censorship, suppression, greed, and opportunism. ~David French, Ibid.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in The Cultural Hegemony of Climate Superstition | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Changing Climate in the Global Warming Debate

Reflection Montage

An Ideological Bias Undermines Science

There’s a new mood in the air among those attuned to the cultural influences that affect scientific inquiry. Fluttering against our inclinations to look the other way is a nagging realization that what we must now study is science itself, before it’s too late and before we’re completely blind to the new reality that modern science is failing us. The monomaniacal obsession with CO2 in the science of global warming is now seen to have taken on a compulsive dimension with all the earmarks of a dementia; and, we have to be concerned about the future wellbeing of the very institution of higher learning.

What we’re seeing is a refusal to admit simple truths, such as the inhumanity of depriving the Third and Developing worlds of energy. We’ve come face-to-face with the possibility that a belief in global warming theory is more than a symptom of a small, culturally and socially disordered subgroup of society. The anxiety, fear, hypochondria, hysteria, phobias and quixotic societal maladaptation to challenges in the world around us can no longer be treated by simply throwing more money at the specter of climate change.

Some scientists in wide-ranging fields from philosophy, psychology, sociology and religion to economics and ethics, are looking more closely at the psycho-cybernetics underlying what has come to be called, climate change: a movement that is partly science, politics and religion; and, in large part, a heavy-handed dose of self-defeating neurosis. We may never agree on the reasons for the birth of the AGW phenomenon –i.e., the shared belief that modernity and humanity simply going about the business of living are heating the globe with disastrous consequences for all.

Scientific disciplines, like economies, can and do experience booms and busts.  We document a boom in climate science, sustained by massive levels of funding by government entities, whose scientific direction is set by an extra-scientific organization, the IPCC, which has emerged as a “big player” in the scientific arena, championing the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.  We note the difficulties in obtaining definitive empirical clarity due to the complex nature of climate, the feedback between the effects of the IPCC’s advocacy and the government’s willingness to fund the science, the ideological and political agendas at play, the dangers to the integrity of scientific procedure in the context of ideological bias, and the poor performance of the “crony capitalist” enterprises that have grown on the back of politicized science. (Butos, WN, McQuade, TJ. Causes and Consequences of the Climate Science Boom)

The AGW phenomenon – largely typified by Left versus right thinking – has given rise to a host of cultural disorders and a societal schizophrenia based on a fear of climate change, all while demanding change of all sorts, irrespective of the consequences. The fear mongering about the causes of foul weather and disease – of droughts and storms, cancer and death – and, the Left’s hatred of president Bush, then Governor Palin, then the ‘Tea Party’ and ultimately conservatism is the preferred way of thinking of this new order. The Left’s demonizing of Christianity, capitalism and the wisdom of the Founders with its pogrom against Christ, the productive and the Constitution – as apocalyptic beasts that must be slain by progressivism – all while being blind to the evils of radical Islam and communism, is a unifying mark of Leftist consensus-thinking. The believers of global warming have become the supporters of liberal fascism, complete with an antipathy to Middle East Jews.

What principles do the followers of Climatism look to for spiritual guidance? What could typify Leftist-thinking more than their respect for the beliefs of people like Ward Churchill, Chairman Mao, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and pastor Jeremiah Wright (“No, no, no, not god Bless America: god Damn America”)? Are we witnessing the decline and fall of Western civilization and the rise of a dysfunctional, unconscious incompetent, secular, socialist herd of nihilists: a society corrupted on the inside and rotting from the head down with no respect for Western philosophy, traditions, principles, morals, ethics, ideals? Have we forgotten that Americanism holds at its heart the foundational belief that every individual has the God-given right to be free of the tyranny of the many?

The very nature of the IPCC’s organization, from its politically motivated appointments of senior staff, to its process of producing allegedly scientific summaries by negotiated compromise, to its toleration of the intervention of political operatives into the production of the most publicized reports of the state of the science, has served to make it the purveyor of tainted science… And as a herding-inducing Big Player in science, the IPCC has provided synergy for the interventions of Big Players of a different sort, the government entities who have seized on the IPCC-generated consensus to fund the climate science boom thereby justify increasing economic interventions citing the threat implied in the AGW hypothesis. (See, Butos, et al., Ibid.)

Sure, sure, it is true that a belief in global warming has been exposed as being something more than science and even politics; but, more interesting now is the blind acceptance of this new religion within the consciousness of so many Westerners, and most especially among the elitists of Leftist-thinking academia. The answer may be very simple: perhaps, they don’t love their country and simply have no respect for Western culture and traditions. Not even the scientific method can hold their allegiance. Their slowly unfolding counter-cultural vision of Utopia is where they want to live but they just can’t seem to get there except by making the rest of us feel guilty for living.

I’ve been mocked, vilified, besmirched… simply for expressing the view that the case for global warming and climate change, and in particular the emphasis on the damage caused by carbon dioxide, the so-called greenhouse gas that is going to do for us all, has been massively over-stated… Blinded, maybe even brainwashed by the climate-change zealots, we are spending so much money on reducing carbon emissions that there is a danger of us bankrupting ourselves – and future generations – to solve a problem that in the opinions of a growing number of scientists and opinion-formers has been wildly exaggerated… those who have been worshiping so ardently at the altar of reduced carbon emissions… may find that they have been deifying not just a false god… I want a clean, green planet. But this obsession with controlling carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is now as dangerous as it is ridiculous… how worried they are about global warming, rising sea-levels and, having seen alarmist films such as Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth… And this breaks my heart. I want children to be excited about the future, not cowed by it. I want them to grow up in a world which is going to be better than the one their parents knew, not significantly worse. I want them to grow up excited by technology and new inventions, not worrying about where the electricity is going to come from to power them. ~Johnny Ball (Beware the global warming fascists…, 22-Feb-2011)

Scientific booms do burst, but in areas where the phenomena are complex and not well understood, the busts can be quiet and long drawn out… and create an ideal breeding ground for incentives that motivate ideologically biased people to circumvent normal constraints in the name of pursuing a “greater good.” ~Butos, et al., Ibid.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in The Cultural Hegemony of Climate Superstition | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Some like it Hot

The Nirvana Thermometers

Global Warming Political Agenda
a Never-Ending Story?

Climate change silly-science entered a new phase. Since there has been no global warming for more than 17 years –and, this is based on the land-based record that roundly exaggerated warming over the past half century – we now see scholarly papers discussing why an unpredicted pause in global warming going on 2 decades doesn’t matter.

There has been no global warming for more than 26 years based on the more accurate satellite data measuring change in the lower atmosphere. More scholarly papers will be needed to tell us it’s not important. How many more papers on the insignificance of the pause are possible if the pause lasts until 2080 or so? Will it take a few volcanic eruptions and quakes along the way, during the course of a natural cooling trend, to trigger a poignant departure away from global warming to a new mass mania about an endless summerless future?

Of many paradigm shifts affecting our view of climate science since the 80s now there has been yet another. From the time George W. Bush pulled the plug on America’s participation in the Kyoto Protocol – essentially turning his back on the collective wisdom of the UN-IPCC and a consensus of opinion coming out of the National Academy of Science – to a more nuanced Bush who talked about the use of switch grass to manufacture ethanol, the public slowly began to believe that concerns about global warming were legitimate. But, trust in climate science began to wane in 2009. The naked hypocrisy of Al Gore’s climate religion and the corruption of climate politics in Copenhagen were exposed; and, with the foi2009.pdf-CRUgate disclosures came a slow unraveling of the phony hockey stick statistics the UN-IPCC used in its campaign of fraud, deception and propaganda.

Human society, like the climate system, has many degrees of freedom. The previous cases lasted from 20 to 30 years. The global warming issue is approaching 30 years since its American rollout in 1988 (though the issue did begin earlier). Perhaps such issues have a natural lifetime, and come to an end with whatever degrees of freedom society affords. This is not to diminish the importance of the efforts of some scientists to point out the internal inconsistencies. However, this is a polarized world where people are permitted to believe whatever they wish to believe. The mechanisms whereby such belief structures are altered are not well understood, but the evidence from previous cases offers hope that such peculiar belief structures do collapse. ~Lindzen

With this final paradigm shift, while people still have open minds when it comes to new ideas about new forms of energy and energy use, more people now feel they have been lied to for years by careerists in the climate change industry about the imminent dangers of global warming.

For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible… By cultural factors, I primarily refer to the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs… The institutional factor has many components. One is the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead. This leads to an emphasis on large programs that never end. Another is the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the distribution of ‘carrots and sticks’ whereby reputations are made and broken. The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research… [and] political bodies act to control scientific institutions… [and] scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of. ~Richard Lindzen, ‘Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?’ ( Rev. 9/’12)

The UN-IPCC is a political not scientific body. Did the departing head of the IPCC, railroad engineer Rajendra Pachauri (who shared the Nobel with Al Gore) respond to a matchbook ad on how to succeed as a professional climate change, global warming alarmist? Like Al Gore, he certainly had no scientific credentials. Western academia has not been bashful about throwing the robe of respectability over the shoulders of anyone who is passionate about preaching the Left’s climate science narrative about global warming to the great unwashed masses.

Why is Rep. Grijalva lending the weight of his office to careerists in the $1 billion-a-day global-warming industry – those who have broken every rule of scientific inquiry to escape the scrutiny of legitimate skepticism – when we know that the current pause in global warming is inexplicable by all in the climate science business except by admitting the roles that natural causes play in climate change? We’ve learned that the higher layers of the upper atmosphere over the tropics have not significantly warmed since the 90s. Doesn’t Grijalva love science? Does Grijalva love his country?

Jouzel, et al. (2007) reconstructed the temperature record of eight ice ages and eight interglacials. The four previous interglacials were all warmer than the present by up to 2.5 K… [The] atmosphere – a tenuous fluid medium – is sandwiched between two near-infinite heat-sinks, the ocean below and outer space above. No doubt there might be significant changes in the temperature of the atmosphere if there were significant changes in the input temperature from the Sun above or from the Earth’s molten core below; but, taking these inputs as broadly constant, such little heat as we are able to generate in the atmosphere will either be radiated harmlessly off to space or taken up into the ocean, which appears to have warmed during the ARGO decade at a rate equivalent to just 0.05 K decade(-1) – well within the very large measurement and coverage uncertainties (each ARGO buoy has to try to monitor 200,000 km³ of ocean). ~MoB

If going from a -50°C to a -40°C at small spots in the coldest and most inhospitable regions on Earth — such as in the dry air of the Arctic or Siberia — and extrapolating that across tens of thousands of miles can be branded as global warming, then perhaps there has been global warming in the US; otherwise, adjusting for that kind of pseudoscience, and adjusting for introducing a systemic warming bias into the climate record by locating official thermometers at busy airports where the tarmac is continually swept clean of winter snow, and for putting weather stations where people live, knowing the UHI effect corrupts the data – “Only 1000 stations have records of 100 years,” notes Dr. Tim Ball, “and almost all of them are in heavily populated areas of northeastern US or Western Europe and subject to urban heat island effect” – there hasn’t been any significant global warming since the 1940s.

NASA says the average temperature of Earth is about 15°C; but, that is a made-up number. To scientists that understand intensive variables the idea of an average temperature of the total atmosphere is as meaningless as an average of all the telephone numbers in NYC. When it comes to record hot and cold, that is something real; but, you really had to be there to understand the degrees of freedom that exit on Earth. According to wiki, the hottest temperature ever recorded was 56.7 °C (134 °F) in Death Valley, California on 10 July 1913; and the lowest ever was −89.2 °C (−128.6 °F) at the Vostok Station, Antarctica on 21 July 1983.

Given all models are wrong, what we really hope is that any new model is more useful than its predecessors and that the value added exceeds the total development costs. ~Edward H. Field

Unfortunately, us folks who are picking up the tab for the development costs of these models don’t seem to have much say in whether we feel their value is worth what climate science is costing us. That’s what liberal fascism is all about: if it feels good and someone else is paying for it, it’s a great idea.

The myth of scientific consensus is also perpetuated in the web’s Wikipedia where climate articles are vetted by William Connolley, who regularly runs for office in England as a Green Party candidate. No deviation from the politically correct line is permitted. ~Richard S. Lindzen

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in The Cultural Hegemony of Climate Superstition | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Climate Change Compendium

Mug, Bush and the Queen~2
~Permalink

Global warming
is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic

Table of Contents

(Recent Articles)

 

Featured Image

Global Warming a Radical Leftist State Beheading

Possibilitarians of American Individualism
Feared by Government Climate Scientists

Western academia’s radical interpretation of science by global warming climatists is more akin to radical ISIS than communist Russia. 626 more words

 

See other articles about the Global Warming Hoax at…

Mug Wump @Wagathon

Hot World Syndrome—fear of
a hotter, more intimidating world than it actually is
prompting a desire for more protection than is warranted
 by any actual threat.

 

 

 

 

Posted in The Cultural Hegemony of Climate Superstition | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Blooming Blossoms, Global Warming and Academy Awards

University_of_Washington_Quad_cherry_blossoms_2014-Double-Crop~2~3
What is Higher than Learning?

Brian Williams and I were invited to view a gathering of the greatest minds in the Western World last Sunday – the 87th Academy Awards. An overall consensus of opinion was that there are several big problems. The solutions for all of them was more liberty – for women, for blacks, for gays and Mexicans; and, more freedom to hold contrary views. Despite the obvious slight to the power of the country’s adversarial legal system that such discrimination still takes place, still it’s an awesome sight to behold these great minds selflessly bringing their truth to light.

Perhaps the USDOJ: Civil Rights Division is not up to the job of advancing the cause of liberty in America. I was surprised to see that a continuing need for greater suppression of carbon dioxide for the sake of the planet wasn’t even mentioned. Sure, we’ve all been cautioned to, “remember that bad science can be hard to spot, that provenance is no guarantee of good” (David Oliver, Masstorts… It is indicative of a lack of understanding of the scientific method among many scientists) and maybe these warnings have finally taken root –e.g., just today the salacious Dr. R.K. Pachauri (member of the India Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change) stepped down as director general of the IPCC (the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Pachauri dropped the charade and explained a lot on his way out the door, admitting in his resignation letter that global warming isn’t science – it’s religion: “For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.”

Common sense has for a long time been relegated to the back of the bus by the global warming machine of Western government, science and academia. Instead of the scientific method it’s the practice of primordial wisdom that motivates global warming alarmists. Perhaps the Academy’s great minds now believe that in its religious zeal to save the planet from America and capitalism, the government’s many solutions to the supposed dangers posed by the machine are actually addressing non-problems and are deceiving the public.

If these great minds can actually admit making a big mistake and now want to correct the record, that truly would be a great example of bringing light to truth. Are these great minds now bringing the sad truth about global warming to light? We can hope that this is yet another example of liberals and Leftists who have come to see the light. Was it not just a short time ago that Mug Wump (Global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic, 7 Feb. 2011) had most of his posts summarily deleted about 2 months after simply posting obvious questions on Amazon’s Science Forum like, How many Western Leftist environmentalists does it take to destroy the environment in, e.g., Bangladesh?

There’s a common misconception that per capita consumption of energy and resources is directly related to negative environmental impact. We’re told that, because the average North American consumes 80 times as much as the average Bangladeshi, we cause 80 times the damage. But all one need do is travel to Bangladesh to see the impact of poverty on the environment. Forests are stripped bare for subsistence farming, rivers are fouled for lack of sewage treatment, and wildlife is severely reduced through poaching. These people need more resources, not less… As a sensible environmentalist, I believe we should be planting more trees and using more wood-the world’s most renewable resource- while building upon and sharing everything we’ve learned about forest sustainability. ~Dr. Patrick Moore (‘Confessions of a Greenpeace dropout,’ see assorted quotes, Ibid.)

Better late than never; but, even if we’re jumping the gun, at least cherry blossoms in Washington D.C. may share their truth with us. Washington’s cherry blossom bloom dates have been confounding the global warming machine for a while now. The Smithsonian’s scientists were quick to point out suggestively when the facts suited them that, “On average, flowering plants are blossoming 4.5 days earlier in 2000 than in 1970.”

The nation’s National Museum went so far as to release the results of a, “30-year study of flowering plant species common in the Washington, D.C. metro area.” and speculate that a, “trend of earlier flowering is consistent with what we know about the effects of global warming.” However, observations of late arrivals of cherry blossoms does not appear to fit the government bureaucracy’s putative, “trend toward earlier blooming of flowering plants [that] may be a result of global warming.” And, the last few cold winters have been causing late blooming, especially last year – maybe this winter too.

As for the next cherry blossom bloom, when it comes it comes and so in time will the truth. Most of the Earth is covered by water and given the depth of the oceans, we’re talking about a heat sink comprising 100s of millions of cubic miles of water. The second half of the 20th century witnessed one of the most active periods of solar activity in Earth  history; however, the sun has been anomalously quiet for a while now and from what we observe, that is not expected to change soon. Instead of slowly storing heat over a long period of time, the oceans are now giving up heat and that probably also will occur over a long period of time. No one knows. Perhaps until 2080, depending upon solar activity.

Putting the global warming machine’s fears of human-CO2 aside, a 2008 study by Aono and Kazui, of the full-bloom date of cherry tree blossoms from the 9th Century in Kyoto, Japan, noted several cold periods, 1220–1350, 1520–1550, 1670–1700, and 1825–1830. However, the temperature began to increase almost linearly after 1830. The Japanese study also discovered something that the government machine tried to hide: “the existence of a widespread ‘Medieval Warm Period’ around the year 1000, as well as the LIA [Little Ice Age].”

In 1280 AD, volcanic eruptions on Iceland and a change in ocean currents started the Little Ice Age which finished in 1920. The North Sea froze in 1303 and 1306–1307, there was massive famine in 1315, and the plague pandemic attacked the weakened population in 1347–1349. There was massive depopulation and it took Europe 250 years to reach the population of 1280 AD. During the Little Ice Age, there were warmer periods associated with sunspot activity. During minimum sunspot activity (1440–1460, 1687–1703 and 1808–1821), the intensely cold conditions were recorded by the Dutch masters, and King Henry VIII was able to roast oxen on the frozen Thames. There were food shortages. Short cold periods occurred after the eruptions of Tambora (1815) and Krakatoa (1883) respectively. In fact, 1816 was known as the ‘year without a summer’. This was the time when Turner painted stormy oceans and skies full of volcanic dust, Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein and Byron wrote Darkness. ~Ian Plimer (The Past is Key to the Present…)

Like the drunk in the Sufi story who looks under the streetlamp for his lost keys because the light is better, perhaps we’re shining our light in the wrong places. Are we only illuminating those things we want to see? Sufi stories have multiple meanings, as suggested by the story about a boatman –i.e.,

The Mullah was earning his living by running a ferry across a lake. He was taking a pompous scholar to the other side. When asked if he had read Plato’s Republic, the Mullah replied, “Sir, I am a simple boatman. What would I do with Plato?” The scholar replied, “In that case half of your life has been wasted.” The Mullah kept quiet for a while and then said, “Sir, do you know how to swim.” “Of course not,” replied the professor, “I am a scholar. What would I do with swimming.” The Mullah replied, “In that case, all of your life’s been wasted. We’re sinking.”

Sure, we see what we shine a light on; but, these stories also shine a light on the limits of practicality and human nature. They question whether knowledge really leads to wisdom. Perhaps we’re missing a lot in life because we do not actually know what we’re looking for and fail to fully appreciate the beauty that is right if front of our eyes. Those who make up the ranks of the global warming machine believe that’s where they will find happiness; it’s where their peers go to seek fulfillment. Finding contentment and meaning in a simple life is not a part of their religion of saving the planet from us.

Global Warming has become a religion. A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint. There may be a growing realization that this may not add all that much meaning to one’s life, but, outside the pages of the Wall Street Journal, this has not been widely promulgated, and people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal. ~Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. (‘Science in the Public Square: Global Climate Alarmism and Historical Precedents’)

 

 Save Us From The Religion of Experts…

 

 

 

 

 

(Updated 2015-2-27)
Posted in The Cultural Hegemony of Climate Superstition | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment