An Inconvenient Truth: new glaciers forming in Scotland

August 25, 2014
Ben Nevis south face

Ben Nevis: winter is coming?

Once again the Earth defies the Received Truth of the Cult of Global Warming. Among the signs and portents of coming DOOM!! is supposed to be the disappearance of glaciers, indicating that the Earth is warming dangerously.

Well, apparently no one sent Ben Nevis, Scotland’s highest mountain, the memo, because researchers there have found evidence of new glaciers being born:

Hazards common in arctic and alpine areas but described as “extremely unusual” in the UK during the summer have been found on Ben Nevis.

A team of climbers and scientists investigating the mountain’s North Face said snowfields remained in many gullies and upper scree slopes.

On these fields, they have come across compacted, dense, ice hard snow call neve.

Neve is the first stage in the formation of glaciers, the team said.

The team has also encountered sheets of snow weighing hundreds of tonnes and tunnels and fissures known as bergschrunds.

The large, deep cracks in the ice are found at the top of glaciers.

Glaciers retreat and advance all the time, as evidenced by the uncovering of ancient forests and archaeological discoveries coming from times when Man was not pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, something Warmists would rather you not think about.

And yet now, in this period of supposed catastrophic Man-caused climate change, when life on Earth hangs by a thread unless we do something now to stop a warming that hasn’t taken place for over 17 years, it seems new glaciers are forming and growing. As Anthony Watts writes at WUWT:

This is how ice ages start – a buildup of snow which does not melt in the Summer, which leads to a positive feedback loop, as the growing ice sheet reflects more and more sunlight back into space.

Now, I’m not predicting a new Ice Age or “global cooling,” nor is Anthony. But as I think Earth’s warming and cooling are better explained by natural cycles rather than human intervention, and since we already have historical experience of the Little Ice Age that seemed to mirror a decline in sunspot activity, a decline that again may be happening, I think an extended period of cooling is more likely than catastrophic warming.

These newborn glaciers could be another sign of that.


Ice. In Michigan. In June.

June 1, 2014
"We're still here!"

“Think I’ll go visit the Great Lakes.”

Is there nothing global warming can’t do?


Bookshelf update: The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism

May 25, 2014

Renaissance scholar astrologer

I’ve updated the “What I’m reading” widget to the right to reflect the latest item on the Public Secrets lectern, Steve Goreham’s The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism.”

book cover goreham mad climatism

I’m only a few chapters into it, so far, but it seems to be a good discussion for the layman of the “science” of global warming and its politics, and the flaws, errors, and problems in both. It’s available in both Kindle (1) and paperback formats.

PS: Why, yes. This is a shameless bit of shilling on my part. I like getting the occasional gift certificate that comes from people buying stuff via my link. But I still think it’s a good book.

Footnote:
(1) I’m happy to say I’ve found no typos or formatting errors, so far. These are all too common in Kindle e-books.


The most ridiculous predictions made on Earth Day, 1970

April 25, 2014
AlGore

The end is nigh!

With modern-day eco-doom cultists predicting catastrophe almost daily unless we DO SOMETHING NOW!!!, my friend Jon Gabriel decided to take a look back at 13 apocalyptic predictions made for the first Earth Day, way back in the Nixon administration. Here are a couple of goodies:

“[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” — Newsweek magazine

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt

Funny, I don’t recall any glaciers showing up in Los Angeles in the last few years…

Read the rest for 11 more amazing predictions of doom and bookmark it for reference for when someone tries to sell you on global warming.


Victor Davis Hanson on the new Inquisition and freedom of speech

April 10, 2014
"The new liberal tokerance"

“The new liberal tolerance”

And even freedom of thought.

Writing at National Review Online, Dr. Hanson reviews recent incidents of people being hounded for their political opinions or scientific skepticism –among others, Brendan Eich at Mozilla; Dr. Richard Tol for not towing the party line on global warming; antisemitism at a major university that only draws a slap on the wrist;  and let’s add Brandeis University’s disgusting insult to Ayaan Hirsi Ali– and then argues that the president has enabled or encouraged this behavior both actively and passively. (And I do believe Hanson is right.)

After all that, VDH offers this about how civil liberties will die in America:

All of that them/us rhetoric has given a top-down green light to radical thought police to harass anyone who is open-minded about man-caused global warming, or believes that gay marriage needs more debate, or that supporting Israel is a legitimate cause, or that breaking federal immigration law is still a crime and therefore “illegal.”

Our civil liberties will not be lost to crude fascists in jackboots. More likely, the death of free speech will be the work of the new medieval Torquemadas who claim they destroyed freedom of expression for the sake of “equality” and “fairness” and “saving the planet.”

And either the irony is lost on them, or they don’t give a damn.

UPDATE: And just like that, another example — the progessive, tolerant, open-minded mob has gone after Dropbox for adding Condoleezza Rice to their board of directors. Can we call them “racists,” yet?  (h/t Stephen Kruiser)

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Global warming headline of the year

February 28, 2012

And it’s only February:

Yes, so powerful is the effect of a trace gas that serves mainly as plant food, that it can make the world cooler while simultaneously causing dangerous warming. Call it a one-stop shop for natural disasters, all of which can be reliably blamed on Mankind, and the only solution to which is greater governmental control (1) over our economies and daily lives.

Next up: man-caused climate change causes sun to rise in West and Barack Obama to become a fan of the free market.

Global warming — is there nothing it can’t do?

And is there any way the climate alarmists could make themselves look more fatuous and desperate? Why, yes, there is.

Hat-tip to  WUWT, which notes the headline has since changed, probably out of embarrassment. And here’s a link to the original Georgia Tech press release, which climate-hysteric “journalists” predictably screwed up.

Footnote:
(1) Especially by transnational bureaucracies answerable to no one and supported by global taxes. Winning!

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Hard times in the Church of Global Warming

January 31, 2012

Today’s a busy day, but I wanted to share three stories that, taken together, almost make one feel sorry for those who cling bitterly to their faith in the fraud that is anthropogenic global warming …er… dangerous man-caused climate change …no, wait… extreme weather events that are really our fault whatever they want to call it, this week.

First, yet another prediction of DOOM falls flat. Among the various disasters sure to befall us as we pump CO2 (aka, “plant food”) into the atmosphere and Earth takes her revenge in the best Hollywood manner was supposed to be an increase in violent hurricanes.

There’s a small problem: it ain’t happening.

What was learned
The four researchers’ reconstructed record of intense hurricanes revealed that the frequency of these “high-magnitude” events “peaked near 6 storms per century between 2800 and 2300 years ago.” Thereafter, it suggests that they were “relatively rare” with “about 0-3 storms per century occurring between 1900 and 1600 years ago,” after which they state that these super-storms exhibited a marked decline, which “began around 600 years ago” and has persisted through the present with “below average frequency over the last 150 years when compared to the preceding five millennia.”

What it means
It is instructive to note that over the past century and a half of ever-increasing fossil fuel utilization and atmospheric CO2 buildup, the frequency of the most intense category of hurricanes in the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico has been lower than it was over the prior five millennia, which speaks volumes about the climate-alarmist claim that continued anthropogenic CO2 emissions will lead to more frequent super cyclones and hurricanes.

Dontcha just hate it when empirical evidence gets in the way of perfectly good religious dogma scientific theory? Granted, this study was only in Florida, but, also in fairness, Florida is one of the places alarmists claimed would be worst-hit by AGW-caused super-storms. Certainly, this is worth testing elsewhere to see if the results hold up.

But wait, there’s more!

Far from the Earth becoming a steam bath thanks to Man’s folly, we may well be headed toward another Little Ice Age, such as that which plagued us from the mid-17th to the mid-19th centuries, when the Hudson and the Thames would freeze-over in winter. Apparently, the sun just won’t cooperate:

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a  92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

(h/t the ever-readable Delingpole)

The Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit (1), as you may know, have been two of the chief centers for climate alarmism, constantly pushing a message of impending DOOM!!, unless we all submit now to a transnational bureaucracy that will tax and control us all the way to Salvation. Naturally, since the report came from the Met, they feel obliged to explain that it really means nothing and that the power of CO2-induced warming will overwhelm the influence of the sun (2).

So, does this mean AGW is now good, since it will keep us from freezing our tootsies off? I’m so confused…

Finally, a group of 16 (real) scientists co-authored an essay in the Wall Street Journal arguing that while there is no need to panic over global warming, we should decry the corruption of science in the name of “consensus” and, yes, profit:

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

(…)

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

Be sure to read the whole thing.

And the next time you find yourself pitying a disconsolate global-warming cultist, forget it. Laugh and point, instead; it’s much more fun.

Footnotes:
(1) The CRU was also at the center of the Climategate and Climategate II scandals. How anyone can take them seriously after that is beyond me.
(2) Of course, this is the same crowd that claimed our children and grandchildren would not know what snow is, only to see Europe soon thereafter blanketed with record snowfalls. So we know what their predictions are worth.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


More Green dreams shattered

January 10, 2012

Two posts at Watts Up With That bring news that that ought to turn the Gaea-cultists’ sweet dreams into nightmares. First, a study from Civitas in the UK demolishes any idea that wind-power is a practical, economic alternate energy source:

The focus on wind-power, driven by the renewables targets, is preventing Britain from effectively reducing CO2 emissions, while crippling energy users with additional costs, according to a new Civitas report. The report finds that wind-power is unreliable and requires back-up power stations to be available in order to maintain a consistent electricity supply to households and businesses. This means that energy users pay twice: once for the window-dressing of renewables, and again for the fossil fuels that the energy sector continues to rely on. Contrary to the implied message of the Government’s approach, the analysis shows that wind-power is not a low-cost way of reducing emissions.

(Full report here (PDF))

They have to pay lip-service to the idea of reducing CO2 emissions, even though there’s no credible evidence of a man-caused greenhouse effect from CO2, because of the success the Green Statists in and outside of government have had in demonizing a gas that’s essentially plant food. The key takeaways, though, are these: because of the unreliability of wind, conventional power stations have to be kept running on standby to handle those times when the turbines aren’t running, either because there’s no wind, or the wind is blowing too fast. That means costs to the consumer skyrocket, as UK residents are finding out. (And we will, too, if Obama and the Eco-lobby in the US have their way.)

But wait, there’s more! It turns out that wind-turbines actually increase the use of CO2 -spewing fossil fuels:

In a comprehensive quantitative analysis of CO2 emissions and wind-power, Dutch physicist C. le Pair has recently shown that deploying wind turbines on “normal windy days” in the Netherlands actually increased fuel (gas) consumption, rather than saving it, when compared to electricity generation with modern high-efficiency gas turbines. Ironically and paradoxically the use of wind farms therefore actually increased CO2 emissions, compared with using efficient gas-fired combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) at full power. [p. 30]

Ooops…

Second, you know all those fears of “ocean acidification,” the Green Left’s latest environmental bogeyman? Turns out it’s another …say it after me… natural process:

It turns out that far from being a stable pH, spots all over the world are constantly changing. One spot in the ocean varied by an astonishing 1.4 pH units regularly. All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years, and that’s referred to as “catastrophic”, yet we now know that fish and some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day.

Data was collected by 15 individual SeaFET sensors in seven types of marine habitats.  Four sites were fairly stable (1, which includes the open ocean, and also sites 2,3,4) but most of the rest were highly variable (esp site 15 near Italy and 14 near Mexico) . On a monthly scale the pH varies by 0.024 to 1.430 pH units.

The authors draw two conclusions: (1) most non-open ocean sites vary a lot, and (2) and some spots vary so much they reach the “extreme” pH’s forecast for the doomsday future scenarios on a daily (a daily!) basis.

pH varies widely and often, yet life adapts and prospers, in a process that’s gone on for hundreds of millions, if not billions of years. No need to invoke the Demon Man and his evil capitalism to frighten people into obedience and submission to a bunch of liberty and economy-killing  transnational bureaucracies.

Though I’m sure they’ll try, anyway.

Keep dreaming, cultists.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Shocker: MSM fakes information in “mutant shark” story to promote climate-alarmist agenda

January 5, 2012

I knew it! I just had a feeling there was something funny going on here!

Remember the story about hybrid sharks I posted about the other day? I mocked it for it’s use of weasel words to scare the reader and push a climate-alarmist, pro-AGW agenda. The story was cited by several news outlets under different bylines (I quoted the original AFP report by writer Amy Coopes), but a Business Insider story by Dina Spector carried (for a while) an even more lurid headline:

“The World’s First Hybrid Shark Is Another Scary Sign That Global Warming Is Real”

At Watt’s Up With That, a commenter wrote directly the researcher cited in the articles, Jess Morgan, to ask her if she really said anything about shark hybridization being possibly related to global warming/climate change. Here’s her answer:

Quote not correct – I have now stated numerous times that it is extremely unlikely that climate change caused the hybridization event – however, the hybrid-Australian blacktips are now being seen further south of their known range (Australain blacktips have a tropical distribution) in cooler waters suggesting that the hybrids may have a wider temperature tolerance than their parents (ie the hybrids may be better adapted to handle changing water temperatures). That long statement is being condensed and printed as your quote below.

(Emphasis in the WUWT post)

Well, well, well. As Arte Johnson might have said, “verrry interesting… but shtinky!” Whether Spector or Coopes or someone else was the original source, and whether the misrepresentation of Morgan’s words was deliberate or unintentionally born of a do-gooder’s enthusiasm, what might have been an interesting bit of scientific reportage was transformed into street-corner preaching for the Cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming, agenda journalism of the worst sort.

It’s a prima-facie example of what Professor Bob Carter has called “noble cause corruption,” the perversion of of scientific (and other) ethics in the service of some cause or vested interest, rather than empirical truth:

Such corruption arises from the belief of a vested interest, or powerful person or group, in the moral righteousness of their cause. For example, a police officer may apprehend a person committing a crime and, stuck with a lack of incriminating evidence, proceed to manufacture it. For many social mores, of which “stopping global warming” and “saving the Great Barrier Reef” are two iconic Australian examples, it has become a common practice for evidence to be manipulated in dishonest ways, under the justification of helping to achieve a worthy end. After all, who wouldn’t want to help to “save the Great Barrier Reef”?

And this is yet another example that journalists are no more immune than cops or scientists — or anyone. It also serves as a healthy reminder to us all to read critically and, when possible, do like the commenter at WUWT and go straight to the source when something catches our eye, rather than relying on authority.

Be sure to read the whole post at WUWT. At the end, you’ll see Business Insider was forced by all the embarrassing questions to change both its headline and article text.

PS: As of this writing, AFP/Yahoo has not corrected the text of the article I originally quoted. Also, be sure to check out Bob Carter’s excellent critique of the “science” behind the theory of dangerous man-caused climate change, “Climate: The Counter-Consensus.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The horrifying price we pay for not signing the Kyoto treaty

January 3, 2012

Curse that George W. Bush (and Bill Clinton) and those global-warming skeptics! Thanks to their betrayal of Mother Gaea, the planet is warming climate is changing and we are faced with the inevitable price of their folly:

Mutant sharks!!! (1)

No, really:

Scientists said on Tuesday that they had discovered the world’s first hybrid sharks in Australian waters, a potential sign the predators were adapting to cope with climate change.

The mating of the local Australian black-tip shark with its global counterpart, the common black-tip, was an unprecedented discovery with implications for the entire shark world, said lead researcher Jess Morgan.

“It’s very surprising because no one’s ever seen shark hybrids before, this is not a common occurrence by any stretch of the imagination,” Morgan, from the University of Queensland, told AFP.

“This is evolution in action.”

Here we go again with more leading propaganda for the climate-alarmist cause: “potential,” a weasel word meant to make us think that something significant may be happening, and that it could be linked to dangerous man-caused climate change, so we need to do something NOW! to stop it. That “something” inevitably requiring economy and liberty-killing government regulation and taxation and massive transnational bureaucracy.

The quoted section is also misleading because it relies on a fallacy: if we’ve never seen something before, it must never have happened before, leaving us with the impression that it must be significant — in this case, for the alarmist cause.

It’s far more likely, in my non-scientific educated layman’s opinion, that natural cycles of climate change lead one shark into the territory of another, closely related species and, when the two met and being in the mood for love, Nature took her course. I’d bet it’s happened countless times before in the history of life on Earth. It may even have been an accident, such as an escape from a fishing net. While the incident itself may be biologically significant and worthy of investigation on its own, to broadly hint that it’s likely the result of man-caused climate change while presenting no evidence of linkage is just Green propaganda, with journalist Amy Coopes as either the propagandist or the willing tool.

Via James Delingpole, whose column is a hilarious must-read.

Footnote:
(1) Anyone who’s familiar with the Arduin roleplaying game knows what’s coming: exploding hydrogen-filled Air Sharks! (Hey, if the alarmists can make lousy projections based on no facts or false facts, so can I.)

UPDATE: More at Pirate’s Cove.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Next time someone tells you CO2 causes global warming…

September 18, 2011

Show them this chart:

(Click on the diagram to enlarge.)

The blue line represents estimates of average global temperature, while the black records the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If there’s a correlation (1) here between rising temperate and rising CO2, I sure don’t see it.

The authors at Geocraft point out that only twice in the Earth’s history have CO2 levels been as low as they are now. In fact, if it were to go much lower, photosynthesis would shut off and plant life would die. (2)

Talk about “unintended consequences” should the “Save Gaea” crowd succeed at geo-engineering!

via Power Line.

Footnotes:
(1) In fact, there’s some evidence that a rise in CO2 lags a temperature rise, not precedes it.
(2) Of course, light and heat play major roles, too, but the point is that we are much closer to the minimum than any dangerously high levels.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Global warming may leave McMurdo base cut off by ice

September 3, 2011

Call it Nature’s “grapefruit in the face” moment for governments that took global-warming alarmists at their word that polar ice would be vanishing. Now there aren’t enough icebreaker ships to go around:

Another little parable for our times is the story of Sweden’s refusal to lease its most powerful ice-breaker to help the United States in supplying its McMurdo base in Antarctica. The Swedes told Hillary Clinton that they need the Oden at home, after two years of unusually thick winter ice have brought shipping to a halt in the northern Baltic. The Americans have relied on the Oden’s services for five years because, as revealed by the Autonomous Mind blog, they have run down their own ice-breaker fleet, believing that global warming would render it unnecessary.

The Baltic nations, including Sweden, Russia, Finland and Estonia, now realise they need all the ice-breakers they can get, to avoid a repetition of the horror last spring when more than 100 ships were trapped in abnormally severe pack ice at both ends of Russia.

Meanwhile, the BBC – as usual at the peak of the Arctic’s summer melt – prattles on about ships that sail round the top of Russia and Canada, and the ice soon vanishing altogether. In its strange bubble, the BBC seems unaware that ships could do this 70 years ago, before “global warming”, and that the real story is the crisis created by the massive return, for two successive winters, of ice to the Gulf of Finland and the Sea of Okhotsk.

Hard to blame the US government (1), though; after all, the science was settled. There was a consensus. Apparently Nature hadn’t watched An Inconvenient Truth.

Meanwhile, be sure to read the rest of Christopher Booker’s article; the first part shows how Germany, in a fit of irrational panic over the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, may go dark even faster than has been predicted for de-carbonizing Britain.

Footnote:
(1) Actually, no it’s not. That was dumb, guys.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Global warming causes mental illness?

August 30, 2011

Is there nothing that can’t be blamed on a harmless gas that serves mainly as plant food?

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

RATES of mental illnesses including depression and post-traumatic stress will increase as a result of climate change, a report to be released today says.

The paper, prepared for the Climate Institute, says loss of social cohesion in the wake of severe weather events related to climate change could be linked to increased rates of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress and substance abuse.

As many as one in five people reported ”emotional injury, stress and despair” in the wake of these events.

The report, A Climate of Suffering: The Real Cost of Living with Inaction on Climate Change, called the past 15 years a ”preview of life under unrestrained global warming”.

”While cyclones, drought, bushfires and floods are all a normal part of Australian life, there is no doubt our climate is changing,” the report says.

Emphasis added, because that bit is key to the whole fantasy built by this article — that dangerous man-caused climate change is leading to an increase in mental illness.

First, let’s remind ourselves of something. According to one of the high priests of the Cult of Global Warming, Dr. Phil Jones, former Director of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (1), there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. Another, Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, once wrote in an email:

“The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.”

So, I ask the article’s author and the Climate Institute, where is the “unrestrained global warming?”

*crickets*

But let’s get back to the article’s thesis. It rests on two pillars:

  1. That changing climate (2) and severe weather events can lead to stress and various mental illnesses.
  2. That these events and therefore the mental illnesses can be attributed to anthropogenic global warming.

I have no disagreement with the first point, nor am I making light of the mentally ill. Fire, drought, earthquake, hurricanes, tornadoes… all these and other disasters can lead to the loss of property, loss of a job, injury or even the death of loved ones. Sure, all this can lead to stress and possible mental illness. I’ve seen it myself in the wake the wildfires and temblors that periodically ravage California.

So, sure. A connection between natural disasters and mental illness? No problem.

But it’s in the second point that Erik Jensen Health of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Climate Institute take a Wile E. Coyote-like leap off the cliff of logic. First for assuming anthropogenic global warming exists when it is very much in question. (See also Carter and Plimer.) And second for listing event after event with the underlying assumption that AGW must be the cause, while never presenting a skeptical viewpoint and without ever investigating if  these events fall outside the norms of Australia’s climate history, whether as recorded by human observers or seen in the paleoclimatological record.

This wasn’t an article about science or even the problems of mental illness. It’s just unchallenged assertion after unchallenged assertion, all meant to scare the reader by invoking the dread demon Climate Change. It was nothing more than a fire-and-brimstone sermon at an Al Gore revival meeting:

“Repent, ye racist greenhouse gas-spewing sinners, lest your communities collapse and your children go nuts because of your crimes against Gaea! THOU SHALT DE-CARBONIZE!!”

The SMH should be embarrassed for running such tripe.

via WUWT

Footnotes:
(1) Also a key figure in the Climategate scandal. (See also)
(2) Of course the Earth’s climate (really, a range of regional climates) is changing. We live on a dynamic planet that has never been in a steady state. But there is no evidence showing that any changes now occurring are beyond what has happened in the past. It’s not CO2, folks, it’s the sun.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Only the space aliens can save Earth from us!

August 21, 2011

The Galactic EPA swings into action!

Really, the eco-loons must be getting desperate. With their credibility collapsing like Al Gore’s psyche and fewer and fewer people regarding the Great Demon Global Warming as a genuine threat, it’s apparently not enough to threaten that the Earth herself might punish us. Nope. Unless we mend our ways, something worse is going to happen.

The space aliens are gonna get us!

Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists

It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.

Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth’s atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.

This highly speculative scenario is one of several described by a Nasa-affiliated scientist and colleagues at Pennsylvania State University that, while considered unlikely, they say could play out were humans and alien life to make contact at some point in the future.

Shawn Domagal-Goldman of Nasa’s Planetary Science Division and his colleagues compiled a list of plausible outcomes that could unfold in the aftermath of a close encounter, to help humanity “prepare for actual contact”.

The report is is actually a broader study of the possible outcomes of first contact with alien civilizations, ranging from beneficial to neutral to “we’re hosed.” Honestly, I think something like this is in theory worthwhile; I’ve no doubt we’ll someday encounter extraterrestrial life, perhaps civilized, and thinking about the possibilities beforehand isn’t a bad idea. And, on the scale of government waste, at least it’s not as bad as spending $3 million for a turtle tunnel.

That is, it’s okay until you get to the part where the authors hyperventilate while lost in a “Green vengeance” fantasy:

“A preemptive strike [against mankind] would be particularly likely in the early phases of our expansion because a civilisation may become increasingly difficult to destroy as it continues to expand. Humanity may just now be entering the period in which its rapid civilisational expansion could be detected by an ETI because our expansion is changing the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere, via greenhouse gas emissions,” the report states.

“Green” aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth and wipe us out to save the planet. “These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets,” the authors write.

For some reason, I’m picturing a mad scientist laughing maniacally and shouting “YOU FOOLS!!”

What we’re seeing here, of course, is the reaction of the arrogant to not being given what they think is due deference. It’s similar to what we’ve seen from liberal Democrats and the Left (redundant, I know): first their position as the natural governing party in the US was ended by Reagan and now with escalating collapse of the welfare state worldwide, they lash out at those who oppose them as “Nazis,” “racists,” “teabaggers,” and either bribed or mentally ill. (1)

It’s the same with alarmist academics, who can’t handle being questioned and challenged, whether by fellow scientists who refuse to go along passively with the “consensus” or by ordinary citizens who can see with increasing clarity that their predictions don’t come true (2), that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, and that the “climate science community” is rife with intellectual corruption at least.

And so, unable to win their arguments with facts, they’re reduced to dreaming of an alien invasion (3).

via Obi’s Sister

Footnotes:
(1)  In fact, one of their high priests, former Enron adviser and New York Times’ columnist Paul Krugman, has also fantasized about aliens saving America from conservative economics. Must be something in their lattes.
(2) I’m still waiting for that tropospheric hot spot to show up.
(3)  Didn’t we already see this in that lousy Keanu Reeves remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The trees are the enemies of Gaea!!

August 15, 2011

Well, that would seem to be the upshot of recent research indicating that accelerating tropical forest growth could lead to even more carbon entering the atmosphere, which would mean… CLIMATE CHANGE!!! AAAIIIEEE!!!

From the Centre for Hydrology and Ecology, via Watt’s Up with That:

The researchers used results from a six-year experiment in a rainforest at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, Central America, to study how increases in litterfall – dead plant material such as leaves, bark and twigs which fall to the ground – might affect carbon storage in the soil. Their results show that extra litterfall triggers an effect called ‘priming’ where fresh carbon from plant litter provides much-needed energy to micro-organisms, which then stimulates the decomposition of carbon stored in the soil.

Lead author Dr Emma Sayer from the UK’s Centre for Ecology & Hydrology said, “Most estimates of the carbon sequestration capacity of tropical forests are based on measurements of tree growth. Our study demonstrates that interactions between plants and soil can have a massive impact on carbon cycling. Models of climate change must take these feedbacks into account to predict future atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.”

The study concludes that a large proportion of the carbon sequestered by greater tree growth in tropical forests could be lost from the soil. The researchers estimate that a 30% increase in litterfall could release about 0.6 tonnes of carbon per hectare from lowland tropical forest soils each year. This amount of carbon is greater than estimates of the climate-induced increase in forest biomass carbon in Amazonia over recent decades. Given the vast land surface area covered by tropical forests and the large amount of carbon stored in the soil, this could affect the global carbon balance.

Tropical forests play an essential role in regulating the global carbon balance. Human activities have caused carbon dioxide levels to rise but it was thought that trees would respond to this by increasing their growth and taking up larger amounts of carbon. However, enhanced tree growth leads to more dead plant matter, especially leaf litter, returning to the forest floor and it is unclear what effect this has on the carbon cycle.

In other words, it’s all our fault. If we hadn’t spewed so much carbon into the atmosphere (1), plant life wouldn’t have flourished (2) as much and threaten us with even more of that nasty, evil carbon. Don’t you see? We’ve turned the trees against the Earth! What have we done? What will we do??

Well, according to the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming and its priesthood, the answer is simple: we must sacrifice our wasteful lifestyles, cut back our carbon footprints to just a toe-print, submit to economy-killing regulatory regimes and transfer wealth to poor nations victimized by our carbon-hogging existence — and all this administered by a selfless transnational bureaucracy, of course. (3)

Now, this isn’t to pick on Dr. Sayer or her research; there is undoubted value in gaining more knowledge about how the carbon cycle works.  That’s the whole point of science: to learn How Stuff Works(tm). And I’m certainly not impugning her motives, for, after all, I have no idea what she believes in her heart of hearts about “dangerous man-caused climate change.”

But… Beyond the pure science, that press release reeks of an agenda. Whether it’s pro-alarmist “Something could, might, maybe happen, so we’d better do something now!” scare-mongering or simply “I’ve got to say the magic PC words in order to get my grant money,” (4) I don’t know.  But an agenda is there, another example of the politicization of science in the service of a cause.

Footnotes:
(1) In spite of there being no clear signal in the scientific evidence for a significant role for CO2 in global warming. Or that there has been no statistically significant warming at all in the last 15 years, per alarmist-extraordinaire Dr. Phil Jones, himself.
(2) No, really. CO2 is plant food. They love the stuff, and increasing levels of it lead to more plants, which is a good thing.
(3) Who hobnob with celebrities who themselves fly in private jets to conferences around the world, thus spewing nasty CO2 all over the place. But that’s different. Because. So, shut up.
(4) Grad  school. Been there, done that.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


I almost feel sorry for global warming cultists. Almost.

July 29, 2011

Pay no attention to facts! The science is settled!

I mean, when one of the central tenets(1) of your faith is shown to be wholly, absolutely wrong and all you can do is stand there slack-jawed and watch like a Philistine as the temple comes crashing down around you, it can be a bit… disheartening.

Truth hurts, doesn’t it? (Emphases added)

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Yeah, you bet they will, if they hold up.(2) Key to the “science” of dangerous man-caused climate change is the idea that the carbon-dioxide man dumps into the atmosphere, rather than being beneficial to plants and otherwise harmless, throws the Earth’s thermostat off and causes dangerous levels of warming — seas rising, ice caps melting, deserts expanding, etc. But not because the CO2 directly warms the atmosphere, though it may do that a teensy bit, but because it traps heat indirectly that should otherwise radiate to space by causing an increase in humidity and cirrus clouds.

See where this is going?

By discovering that the Earth releases far more heat than the UN’s models and releases it far earlier in the process than assumed(3), the central driving mechanism of anthropogenic global warming is shown to be nothing more than a myth, a chimera.

It is shown to be wrong, and with it the whole structure of dangerous man-caused climate change collapses.

Not that this will end this nonsense overnight. Too many people, businesses, and governments have too much false pride, money, and political objectives staked on AGW being true. The British government is enthusiastically driving its economy back into the dark ages in the name of solving  a problem that does not exist. The Obama administration is grasping for control over the US economy via EPA regulations meant to control “carbon pollution.” Alarmist scientists are desperate to preserve their reputations and grant money, and companies like GE and BP are investing a lot to profit from the “green technology” that’s supposedly meant to save us from global warming — and in government mandates that force us to use that technology.

Then there’s the question of faith, coming back to the title of this post. For many, “Green” or “Gaea” is a religion, though most might deny it. Full of loathing for capitalism and seeing an out of control climate as fit punishment for what we’ve done to the Earth, it’s important to them that carbon dioxide really be a demon, rather than plant food. Living the “green life,” rather than simply being sensible stewardship of the environment and not fouling one’s own nest, becomes a quest for virtue and atonement. And, like any zealot, they have to make sure we live their faith, too, whether we want to or not.

Thus Spencer and Braswell’s findings have to be devastating to alarmists who stop to think about them, and I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.

Nah. Not even close.

LINKS: Spencer and Braswell’s article in Remote Sensing (PDF). More at Hot Air, Power Line, and Pirate’s Cove.

RELATED: Oh, my. Polar Bear-gate? Fraud in the Warmist community? Say it ain’t so! *cough*Climategate*cough* A caution.

Footnotes:
(1) Pet peeve: people who either misspell the word as “tenent” or misuse “tenant.”
(2) Yes, if. Science is about testable hypotheses, not consensus or settled science. Spencer and Braswell’s results have to be subjected to falsification.
(3) All the UN/IPCC computer models are based on boatloads of assumption, guesswork, and very little (and that often “adjusted”) empirical data, unlike the study at hand. That’s not science, that’s a rigged game.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Why the Left’s global warming agenda is flat out wrong

July 10, 2011

Here’s a neat video that summarizes the problems with the Left’s argument in favor of the existence of dangerous Man-caused global warming. (1) It’s narrated by Dr. Roy Spencer, a meteorologist and AGW-skeptic. I think it frames the issues nicely.

Produced by Encounter Books and Declaration Entertainment, a bit over nine minutes long.

Dr. Spencer has also written a few books you may find of interest. (2)

Footnotes:
(1) Also known as “The problem for which there is darned little evidence and which probably doesn’t exist.”
(2) Thank you, California, for sparing me the shame of earning any of that filthy lucre through those links.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Poor Gaea, the little Earth goddess just can’t win

July 1, 2011

First the air is too dirty for us to breathe, so we clean it up. Then along come Gaea cultists climate-change researchers to tell us that, because we cleaned the air that —OMG!!!— the Earth will overheat!

New research initiated jointly by NUI Galway and the University of Helsinki reveals the true rate of greenhouse gas induced global warming has been masked by atmospheric aerosols (otherwise known as Particulate Matter), through their formation of reflective haze and cloud layers leading to an aerosol cooling effect.

The new investigations show that the present-day aerosol cooling effect will be strongly reduced by 2030 as more stringent air pollution abatements are implemented both worldwide and at the European scale and as advanced environmental technologies are utilised.

These actions are projected to increase the global temperature by 1°C and temperatures over Europe by up to 2-4°C depending on the severity of the action. This is one of the main research outcomes of the recently concluded EUCAARI (European Integrated project on Aerosol Cloud Climate and Air Quality Interaction) project funded by the European Commission.

The EUCAARI project, originally initiated by Professor Colin O’Dowd at NUI Galway’s Centre for Climate and Air Pollution Studies, who resided on the project’s management team, and led by Professor Markku Kulmala of the University of Helsinki, has provided new understanding of the impacts of aerosols and trace gases on clouds and climate.

According to Professor O’Dowd:“The quantification of the effect of aerosols on the radiative balance (cooling or heating) of the planet has been one of the most urgent tasks to underpin more informed projections of future climate change. Now that we have this data we need to reinforce European political decision-making to develop new strategies and implementation plans for global air quality monitoring and to take Europe a leading role in developing and applying environmental technologies. Furthermore, it is urgent that higher-resolution EU-scale projections are conducted using a new generation of regional models nested within the global models.”

I highlighted that last sentence because I figured it needed a translation from the bureaucratese (scientist dialect):

“We need more grant money.”

Clear now?

Note also the third paragraph, which begins “These actions are projected…” It’s a cute trick. “Projected” is a code word for using computer models using whatever data the researchers fed into it — data that’s possibly been “cleaned up” or otherwise manipulated, as we saw in the Climategate revelations and the exposure of Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph as useless garbage that would produce the (desired) scary result no matter what numbers were input. The fact is that we have only a very few decades of empirical observations to work with, and to try to “project” that out into the future when we’re dealing with extraordinarily complex and poorly understood climate systems is laughable.

Remember, they’re “projecting,” not “predicting.” To predict something would be to make it a test of the validity of the computer model, and with the lousy predictive record global-warming alarmists have so far, I doubt they’d want to do that. “Projection” is much better, because it allows the model-maker to escape accountability and hem-and-haw and say “the model must need more refinement” and then apply for another grant for money to pour down the same drain.

Do I sound cynical? Maybe it’s because there’s no evidence that’s yet been uncovered that shows that anything happening now is outside the range of what’s happened in the last several hundred million years, which we can see from the geological record.

With apologies to Drs. O’Dowd and Kulmala, until shown otherwise with empirical proof, rather than projections from models, I think it’s safe to keep cleaning the air.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Kyoto Treaty collapses: Gaea-worshipers, Green Statists hardest hit

May 29, 2011

Way back in 1997, many of the world’s nations gathered in the beautiful city of Kyoto to sign a treaty to save us from a problem that does not exist: anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The aim of this treaty was to impose freedom and economy-crushing regulation on the industrial world regulate, limit and reduce the amount of “greenhouse gases,” such as carbon dioxide (aka, “plant food”) by imposing targets… which were largely not met, because most governments don’t want to commit suicide by returning to a pre-industrial age.

The Kyoto Treaty (which President Bush wisely refused to submit to the Senate) is set to expire next year, so there’s an effort on to renew it so we can all keep supporting the lifestyles of transnational bureaucrats fighting AGW, which doesn’t exist. That effort fell apart this weekend as four nations with some of the biggest economies on the planet said “no:”

Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty, European diplomats have said.

The future of the Kyoto Protocol has become central to efforts to negotiate reductions of carbon emissions under the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, whose annual meeting will take place in Durban, South Africa, from November 28 to December 9.

Developed countries signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. They agreed to legally binding commitments on curbing greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming.

Those pledges expire at the end of next year. Developing countries say a second round is essential to secure global agreements.

But the leaders of Russian, Japan and Canada confirmed they would not join a new Kyoto agreement, the diplomats said.

They argued that the Kyoto format did not require developing countries, including China, the world’s No. 1 carbon emitter, to make targeted emission cuts.

At last Thursday’s G8 dinner the US President, Barack Obama, confirmed Washington would not join an updated Kyoto Protocol, the diplomats said.

Now, who would have thought it: national leaders not wanting to cripple their own economies while other nations get a free pass to catch up? Why, you might think one of them was up for reelection, or something…

Regardless of the why, this is good news for those who value prosperity, liberty, and scientific truth.

Which doesn’t include everyone. Among Gaea cultists, the news probably brought many scenes like this:

What is best in life? To hear the lamentations of the eco-hippies…

via Watt’s Up With That?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


John Huntsman: scratch one candidate

May 17, 2011

Not that I was likely to vote for him anyway, but this made it a certainty:

You also believe in climate change, right?

This is an issue that ought to be answered by the scientific community; I’m not a meteorologist. All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer we’d listen to them. I respect science and the professionals behind the science so I tend to think it’s better left to the science community – though we can debate what that means for the energy and transportation sectors.

Matt [David, Huntsman’s communications director,] says you’ve changed your mind about cap-and-trade.

Cap-and-trade ideas aren’t working; it hasn’t worked, and our economy’s in a different place than five years ago. Much of this discussion happened before the bottom fell out of the economy, and until it comes back, this isn’t the moment.

So, if 90% of scientists said birds chirping in the morning as the sun rose actually caused the sun to rise, you’d take them seriously, John? If it were me, I’d ask what clown college they got their degrees from.

And who cares if whatever percentage of scientists (In what fields?) agree? Science is not about democracy or consensus; it is about empirically derived data, testable hypotheses, and the simplest explanation that best fits the observed facts. On all those scores, the “theory” of dangerous man-caused climate change fails. There is no detectable evidence for it that signals human origin for climate change. Quite the contrary, there are scads of evidence across many disciplines that climate change is a) always occurring; b) operates in a series of overlapping natural cycles; and c) is not anywhere near to exceeding what’s happened in the past per the geological record.

It sounds like the former governor and former ambassador could stand to read a good book or two on the topic.

Oh, and John, it’s never the moment for cap-and-trade, unless you like statist solutions for problems that don’t exist and are guaranteed to cripple your nation’s economy.

And Huntsman wants me to vote for him for president? Thanks, but no thanks. I’d rather vote for someone who understands basic science and economics.

via Hot Air

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)