Astroid to Earth: Authority of Science Sucks!

True Believers of the global warming are looking pretty silly riding their pink donkey to the capitalism-free Utopian dreamland of the Left. But, something is wrong when to get there the Left just can’t stop the lying.

Ever since the Climategate e-mail scandal exposed how Mr. Mann’s graph used ‘a trick’ to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperatures, public support also has declined for the fable that cosmic irritation at mankind’s exhalations has made things hotter by an imperceptible one-third of one degree over the course of a decade. In 2000, media-driven climate hysteria peaked with 72 percent of those surveyed by Gallup indicating they were worried about global warming. That according to, Washington Times’ Andrew Thomas who noted that those numbers have since fallen with many more agreeing that the alarm about global warming was exaggerated and that, pursuing policies that sacrifice jobs and economic prosperity on the pagan altar of warmism, amounts to cash-for-clunkers socio-economics.

Climatists have been, “locked into a simple-minded identification of climate with greenhouse-gas level. … That climate should be the function of a single parameter (like CO2) has always seemed implausible. Yet an obsessive focus on such an obvious oversimplification has likely set back progress by decades,” (Richard Lindzen, July 2012)

Facts are facts: the surface temperatures of the Earth constantly fluctuate. A supposed rise of temperatures of 0.8 °C in 150 years is just too small to worry about. A new study was released just this week that analyzes the surface record as reported by the NOAA and it, shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial. In addition to recording temperatures at poorly-sited stations located at airports and in urbanized areas that will of course show increases in temperature trends, Well sited rural, non-airport stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied. (see, Watts, A., et al., An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends.)

It is inescapably demonstrated that stations with poor microsite (Class 3, 4, 5) have significantly higher warming trends than well sited stations (Class 1, 2): This is true for, in all nine geographical areas of all five data samples. The odds of this result having occurred randomly are vanishingly minuscule. (Ibid.)

So, in addition to all of the lying, added to all of the uncertainty about anything that involves the divining of our future, we have institutional incompetence at the highest and most basic level. As Lindzen says, it’s not that we expect disaster, it’s that the uncertainty is said to offer the possibility of disaster: implausible, but high consequence…

…Somewhere it has to be like the possible asteroid impact: Live with it.

About 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. A Chance Meeting– We toured south along the Bicentennial Bike Trail in the Summer of 1980, working up appetites covering ~70 miles per day and staying at hiker/biker campgrounds at night along the Oregon/California coast (they were 50¢ a day at that time). The day's ride over, and after setting up tents, hitting the showers, and making a run to a close-by store, it was time to relax. The third in our little bicycle tour group, Tom, was about 30 yards away conversing with another knot of riders and treating himself to an entire cheesecake for dinner. He probably figured Jim and I would joke about what a pig he was eating that whole pie and decided to eat among strangers. Three hours later after sharing stories and remarking on a few coincidences that turned up here and there, Tom and one of the former strangers realized they were cousins, meeting in this most unlikely place for the first time. ~Mac
This entry was posted in The Cultural Hegemony of Climate Superstition and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Astroid to Earth: Authority of Science Sucks!

  1. Wagathon says:

    Facts are facts: global warming alarmism has become a Left vs. right issue. If you are confused try reading Patrick Moore’s, Confessions of a Greenpeace founder.

  2. You certainly have some divisive views. Concern for the state of the environment does not equate with a political ideology it is the neo-conservative ‘right’ that makes that premiss.

  3. Wagathon says:

    Take, for example, the True Believers of global warming alarmism. With them it’s all about politics not science. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a Left versus right issue now would it?

    Obviously it’s all political and yet for all of the evolution of man, mastery over the vagaries of nature was as prized as the search for truth for its own sake. Now that the nihilism of the Leftists and their liberal Utopianiam has reached its zenith in the West whatever once had value is now worthless and truth doesn’t matter anymore.

    Let us state it another way. Who do you prefer George Washington or Mao Tse-Tung?

    I think the answer is simple:

    ■If you are a Tibetan Buddhist monk, you prefer a God-fearing protector of personal and religious freedom like George Washington

    ■If you are a tenured professor in liberal fascist academia, then Ward Churchill is more inspiring than Winston Churchill, the mass murderer Mao is your philosopher, and Bush-haters Castro and Chavez are your comrades.

  4. it’s unfortunate that some confuse science and politics.

  5. Wagathon says:

    The global warming hoax persists so long as the Left succeeds in treating scientific skeptics like their authoritarian predecessors treated Galileo, Socrates, Einstein and the Jews and famous hurricane hunter Bill Gray. “Science is not a democracy. The head count fallacy has been recognized as irrational since Aristotle. Even if science were a democracy, for every scientist who supports the notion of human-caused global warming, there are more than ten who consider that notion pure vanity… No science, just bureaucratic conclusions contrary to science, an excuse for a brand new tax… Both Galileo and Einstein were famous deniers of centuries-old theories. They were right. The consensus was wrong… to question science is called scholarship… Dr. John Christy told us just last week, having lived among the world’s poor, their lives there are brutal and short. Those who kick the poor in the teeth while pretending to soak the rich do not merit the votes from either.” (Mr. Linder, Hearing On Protecting Lower-Income Families While Fighting Global Warming, Thursday, March 12, 2009, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, Washington, D.C.)

  6. I believe you should expand your source of reading.

Comments are closed.